Saturday, February 18, 2012

Allopatric Speciation Tested in Martinique

You know the story, mountain ranges formed, rivers changed course, islands formed, and other earth changes split populations into isolated parts which led to divergence, speciation and, well, the rest is history. Given enough geographic isolation events over enough millions of years, and pretty soon fish turned into amphibians and reptiles and mammals. In short, a fish population had spontaneously turned into a giraffe population. But when islands in the Lesser Antilles coalesced to form Martinique, lizards from the different islands didn’t follow the narrative. In spite of evolutionary expectations the different lizard populations, which had been separated for six to eight millions years, had no difficulty interbreeding as one species. The so-called allopatric speciation never happened. Undaunted as ever, evolutionist now call for “ecological speciation,” which didn’t occur either but it has the virtue that it can’t be falsified.

194 comments:

Part of the problem here is the definition of species. Interbreeding has always been one classic criterion, but is recognized as perhaps not being either necessary or exhaustive. I've often felt that some of the criteria used to define separate "species" (geographical isolation, breeding at different times of day or at different seasons, tendency to not breed with other groups, different size, color, etc.) could easily apply to subgroups within groups of animals that are recognized as a single species. This applies to humans as well. Of course no-one would ever dare suggest that various humans are separae species. But it does bring us back to the age old question of what a species really is . . .

Darwin spent a fair amount of ink in The Origin arguing that the concept of a species was really an arbitrary label attached once the "variations" became large enough between groups. Of course he had a vested interest in blurring the lines between species because it helped his rhetorical stance about everything just being a long process of variation. Also, it stood in opposition to the fixity of species view held by many.

Once physically co-located again the individual species began to cross breed and hybridize.

Well, it depends. If the progeny begin to diverge away from the parental body-type, then this would be proof of allopatric speciation and the principle of divergence. But if they begin to revert to some previous form, then this undermines both of the above.

However, when we use selectively neutral markers from the nuclear genome, on this naturally replicated system, we can see that these anoles are freely exchanging genes and not behaving as species. Indeed, there is more genetic isolation between adjacent populations of the same species from different habitats than between separate putative allospecies from the ancient islands. This rejects allopatric speciation in a case study from a system thought to exemplify it, and suggests the potential importance of ecological speciation.

That last sentence is nasty, Thornfulness. Ready to give up on Darwinism yet?

Cornelius regularly portrays the predictions of evolutionary theory as prophecy, or takes an instrumentalist view in that they do not actually represent reality, but are merely an instrument for predicting phenomena.

Here's a highly simplified analogy to illustrate the problem with his methodology.

We start out with an entire hypothetical system made up of two theories. Each number in a theory represents some proposed state in the system at time t=0, which consists of the following…

Theory one: 32 + 20 + 10 = 62

Theory two: 5 + 10 + 3 = 18

As realists, both of these theories are thought to represent actual states, in reality, so they are all taken into account as a whole. So, not only do we sum up each individual theory, but we sum the result of each theory as well.

As such, if, at time t = 0, someone concluded that the second digit in theory one was 20, they would end up "predicting" our "experience" result in a value 80 since 62+18 = 80. Specifically, they take all of the theories at time t=0 seriously, in that they are true in reality, which results in what we experience.

We then fast forward to time t=1, at which theory one has expanded to conclude the first digit represents not just one state, in reality, but three individual states. And it's conceded these three states are represented by the values 12, 10 and 8, in reality.

In other words, theory one has expanded to explain more and, in the process, has become more accurate. So, it now looks like…

Theory one: (12, 10, 8) + 20 + 10 = 60

We fast forward again to time t=2, theory two undergoes a similar expansion and increase in accuracy. It now looks like…

Theory two: 5 + 10 + (2 + 1 + 7) = 25

Now, if we use the methodology that Cornelius regularly uses here on his blog, he would evaluate theory one at time t=2, based on predictions it made at time t=0. That is, he'd claim theory one has been falsified at time t=2 because, rather than ending up with the the prediction of 80 made at time t=0, we now end up with 85.

In other words, he's attempting to portray evolution's explanation of more phenomena, more accurately, as a falsification of the theory!

It's unclear why Cornelius would do this unless he holds scientific theories to the same criteria as prophecy through divine revelation, or that he's an instrumentalist in regards to the predictions evolutionary theory, in that they do not actually represent reality, but are merely instruments use to predict phenomena.

The former is not scientific. The latter is a hold out of logical positivism, as found in the wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Both are bad science.

In case it's not clear, apparently, Cornelius thinks theories should not grow to explain more phenomena, should not become more accurate and should always predict the same thing, regardless if other separate theories that would impact those predictions change over time.

In case it's not clear, apparently, Cornelius thinks theories should not grow to explain more phenomena, should not become more accurate and should always predict the same thing, regardless if other separate theories that would impact those predictions change over time.

It's unclear how this is a reasonable, or even rational, expectation.

But that's how CH's Bible does it. Written once, infallible and unchangeable no matter what new evidence is introduced.

Hey, if it was good enough reason for the Church to imprison Galileo, it should be good enough for us too.

Interesting. So a bunch of lizards were physically separated from each other for 6-8 million years and nothing much happened. When the islands came back together they went back to breeding with one another same as always.

In other words, 6-8 million years isn't enough time for any of the lizards to become grow wings or become warm blooded or whatever. Lizards stay lizards, despite having 8 million years to turn into something else.

Interesting. So a bunch of lizards were physically separated from each other for 6-8 million years and nothing much happened. When the islands came back together they went back to breeding with one another same as always.

In other words, 6-8 million years isn't enough time for any of the lizards to become grow wings or become warm blooded or whatever. Lizards stay lizards, despite having 8 million years to turn into something else.

Wrong. Nothing in evolutionary theory says morphologies *have* to undergo major changes, especially if the surrounding environment / selection pressure doesn't change much. There was noticeable genetic change that happened to the species in that time, which you would know if you bothered to read the paper.

This undermines the grandiose claims of macro-evolution.

Hardly. *Can* change morphology doesn't mean *must* change. Didn't we already go over this point with you a few weeks ago? Or was that another Creationist? Your nonsense all starts to sound alike after a while.

After six years of work and publication, the conclusion is clear: none of the common Ice Age mammals and birds responded to any of the climate changes at La Brea in the last 35,000 years, even though the region went from dry chaparral to snowy piñon-juniper forests during the peak glacial 20,000 years ago, and then back to the modern chaparral again.

So, we don't see divergence in lizards because the environment doesn't change much. Then, in the case of the environment going through extremely dramatic change, we see NO divergence in all manner of mammals and bird. Darwinism is unfalsifiable to the "true believers."

Prothero was testing one specific parameter - overall body size - as it correlates to climate change. More specifically he was testing Bergmann’s rule, which states that warm-blooded animals in colder climates tend to have larger body masses, which retain heat better.

He wasn't looking for any other morphological changes, like longer limbs, different dentition, slightly evolved crania, etc. What he found was interesting and needs explaining as it is an exception to other well documented cases. One hypothesis offered is the tested mammals and birds were already well adapted to deal with a wide range of climate conditions, so didn't respond to local climate changes as much as thought. Nothing in evolutionary theory says morphologies *have* to undergo major changes.

Sorry to burst your Creationist balloon again but the findings don't affect overall evolutionary theory in the least.

Let me give you this much credit, at least you stayed away from insults for the most part, and actually presented a bit of science. Very good.

However, Bergmann's rule, which precedes Origin of Species by twelve years, says that due to the geometric increase of volume to surface area as animals get larger, larger sizes should prevail in colder climates.

Bergmann's (1847) explanation for his rule was that a greater increase in size involves a more rapid increase of the volume of an animal than of its surface area. As heat production of a homeotherm is related to its volume, while heat loss to its surface, larger animals will tend to produce more heat and to lose relatively less, an advantage in cooler climate.

So, per Darwinian theory, being larger in cooler climates would be an advantage. Thus, size should correlate with a drop in temperatures, and the reverse would be expected when it warmed up. Why would the morphological changes you listed---" . . . longer limbs, different dentition, slightly evolved crania, etc."---be expected to change with temperature? The most evident change, and most important, would be a change in body size. But it doesn't happen.

At least you concede that it is "interesting and needs explaining."

T: Why don't you try reading the primary scientific literature instead of the heavily spun bullcrap you get from the UD IDiots?

Until last week, I didn't know who Prothero was. He's written a very large number of papers. But now that he has published something that challenges Darwinian orthodoxy, all of a sudden, he's a "UD IDiot". You certainly live in a black-and-white world.

BTW, I believe I've found the error that our population geneticist friend was making regarding the "substitution rate." He said that the "substitution rate" is the same as the "mutation rate."

Well, he's right, and he's wrong.

He's right that NUMERICALLY they are the same "number"; but he's wrong in how he is applying it.

The mutation rate for mammals, let us say, is 10^-7 bp/replication. This is equivalent to 10^-7 bp mutations/genome replicated. However, the "substitution rate" would be 10^-7 bp substituted/generation of the entire population.

Very, very different results. This means that a population of mammals would "fix" one, single mutation every 10 million years in the absence of selection. So much for neutral drift.

T: Why don't you try reading the primary scientific literature instead of the heavily spun bullcrap you get from the UD IDiots?

Until last week, I didn't know who Prothero was. He's written a very large number of papers. But now that he has published something that challenges Darwinian orthodoxy, all of a sudden, he's a "UD IDiot". You certainly live in a black-and-white world.

I didn't say Prothero is a UD IDiot, and he didn't publish anything that challenges evolutionary theory. The clowns at UD are the IDiots who spun Prothero's work into something it's not.

Theobald doesn't get off to a good start by saying that Darwin was the first to propose universal common descent. Which he wasn't. This muddled inaccuracy is pretty representative of the rest of the article. It makes we want to go and read an algebra book to get back to clear thinking again.

That genetic sequences don't match the tree of life based on morphology is totally missed by Theobald.

Mainly though, the hypothesis he is testing against is not common design. He compared UCA against the notion that sequence similarity (convergence, etc) might originate by chance as opposed to universal common descent. Does he have the name of the one person in the history of the world that believed such a notion?

"Hybridization in the south of the ring between the unblotched E. e. eschscholtzii and the blotched E. e. klauberi is RARE or,at ONE site, nonexistent, SUGGESTING complete species formation "(Wake et al. 1986, 1989).

--

So hybridization between the non mating Ensatina is rare, but possible. Apparently at one site it hasn't been observed, but at others it has. They think that at this one site the data suggests a species formation.

--

Once again the ball starts rolling but stops short of showing any empirical observation of any substantial directional change. It certainly falls way short of showing a unbounded change. Certainly if biologists had solid evidence for a speciation formation we would see something more than a subspecies naming convention going on within the ring species.

--

I'm not even claiming that it is always at the species level that change is bounded... but it would sure be helpful to at least see a clear cut and solid example of a genuine speciation event that is beyond speculation.

What I'm claiming is that when the data is plotted out over time t+n... there is not an observation of unbounded and directional change. Some animals have very short generations and lifecycles so making excuses that there isn't enough time to observe the change is an excuse. The changes that we do see happening occur quite rapidly... bird beaks, peppered moths, etc. None of them demonstrate evolution, only bounded change that diverges and merges with no net directional gain over time. Again, what "could happen" is not evidence, and using water erosion to justify what "could happen" is not evidence for biological evolution either.

It is ironic that evolutionists make such a big deal out of ring species when the ring itself is a bounded pattern.

We see once again, as with every other example given by evolutionists the island lizards show no unbounded and directional change.

Like the finches (and everything else), there is a diverging and merging, an oscillating back and forth, a wobbly pattern to variation but no net directional change.

What's different here than with the bird beaks, peppered moths and EVERYTHING else that is used to support evolution (but doesn't) is that the lizards had millions of years to show unbounded and directional change.

In summary, not only has unbounded and directional change NEVER been observed in the history of science, but the lizards show that even 8 million years does not change that pattern.

"After six years of work and publication, the conclusion is clear: none of the common Ice Age mammals and birds responded to any of the climate changes at La Brea in the last 35,000 years, even though the region went from dry chaparral to snowy piñon-juniper forests during the peak glacial 20,000 years ago, and then back to the modern chaparral again.In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate."

For those not interested in Tedford the idiot's quote-mining, here is the full text of Prothero's article. The particular out-of-context section is about SJ Gould's idea of puncuated equilibrium, not about "no evidence for speciation" as Tedford the idiot spins it.

A question, Thorton, about the Prothero article.I am unclear if he found no change in his lineages he collected . Or if the change he found did not correlate with change in climate? Or am I not even wrong?

This result intrigued me, so I began to re-examine the uncritical acceptance of the notion that fossil mammals track environmental changes.

Good attitude for a scientist to have, isn't it?

In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate.

Maybe critical re-evaluation of Darwinian theory is in order, eh? Just a thought.

"This result intrigued me, so I began to re-examine the uncritical acceptance of the notion that fossil mammals track environmental changes."

Good attitude for a scientist to have, isn't it?

It's an excellent attitude. That's why he's a scientists and not an IDiot. Notice that after he formed his hypothesis he (and his students) went and did the hard dirty work - did the research, collected data, analyzed it. He then presented his conclusions to his peers to review and critique.

Why don't IDC pushers ever do real science like that?

"In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate."

Maybe critical re-evaluation of Darwinian theory is in order, eh? Just a thought.

LOL! You Creationists are nothing if not consistent. Every time some new piece of scientific research comes by that changes and improves our understanding of some small facet of evolutionary theory, you guys jump up and down and scream "EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION IS WRONG!! IT SHOULD ALL BE THROWN AWAY!!" Then you wonder why you get laughed at.

Prothero's work examined one specific aspect of mammal morphology - average body size - as it correlated to one specific aspect of the animal's environment - climate. It doesn't say "no evolution occurred in 50 MY". In that time frame dogs and bears still evolved from a common carnivorous ancestor. Cats still evolved and diversified into lions, tigers, leopards. Bats still evolved flight by modifying their their hands for wings. Cetaceans still evolved from four-legged land mammals.

There's so much information science knows about these sorts of changes, yet you guys aren't interested and won't bother to learn any of it. All you care about is the parts you can cherry-pick and spin to support your religious views.

ID questions the "uncritical acceptance" of Darwinian theory, which, in your opinion, is an "excellent attitude"; and, yet, you call them IDiots.

They're IDiots not because they question the ToE but because they claim to have a better explanation (ID) without doing any research or producing any positive results to support their position. They're IDiots because they make an end run around proper scientific methodology and try to get their crap forced into public science classrooms without doing any of the necessary scientific work.

First, would IDers be welcomed into the halls of science?

Absolutely. But they have to play by the accepted rules of science - do the work first, have it critically peer reviewed, make the appropriate corrections, THEN crow about your achievements. IDers now jump right to the last step without doing any of the work.

I don't you see you being open-minded enough to accept an IDer as a graduate student.

Sure I would. But I don't run an affirmative action program for religiously-based stupidity.

Second, theoretical physicists didn't build the LHC. ID is about interpreting lab data aleady obtained more than raw experimentation (although there's room for that as well as far as I can see).

LOL! Here comes the Creationists again. It's all about "interpretation", right? Problem for ID is that science goes for the most parsimonious interpretation, the one that's most consilient across all of the evidence. IDers won't do that, demanding that each piece of evidence be examined in a vacuum.

Bottom line is - ID *could* be the object of serious scientific research, but not the way you guys offer it up now.

This isn't any legitimate criticism of ID given the current circumstances

I'd say the fact that ID has done no research, made no predictions, tested no hypotheses, produced no results, and can't be falsified are mighty fine legitimate criticisms.

I'd say the fact that ID has done no research, made no predictions, tested no hypotheses, produced no results, and can't be falsified are mighty fine legitimate criticisms.

What about "junk-DNA"? Who was right about that, and who was wrong? What about putative vestigial organs that turn out to have function? What about this very column, where allopatric speciation, the accepted path to speciation, is called into question? Does this slow you down?

While you might enjoy pointing fingers, you need to take a good look at what's going on in your own backyard.

I invite you again to read Fleeming Jenkin's objections to, and rejection of, Darwin's theory.

He ends thusly:

What can we believe but that Darwin's theory is an ingenious and plausible speculation, to which future physiologists will look back with the kind of admiration we bestow on the atoms of Lucretius, or the crystal spheres of Eudoxus, containing like these some faint half-truths, marking at once the ignorance of the age and the ability of the philosopher. Surely the time is past when a theory unsupported by evidence is received as probable, because in our ignorance we know not why it should be false, though we cannot show it to be true. Yet we have heard grave men gravely urge, that because Darwin's theory was the most plausible known, it should be believed. Others seriously allege that it is more consonant with a lofty idea of the Creator's action to suppose that he produced beings by natural selection, rather than by the finikin process of making each separate little race by the exercise of Almighty power. The argument such as it is, means simply that the user of it thinks that this is how he personally would act if possessed of almighty power and knowledge, but his speculations as to his probable feelings and actions, after such a great change of circumstances, are not worth much. If we are told that our experience shows that God works by laws, then we answer, 'Why the special Darwinian law?' A plausible theory should not be accepted while unproven; and if the arguments of this essay be admitted, Darwin's theory of the origin of species is not only without sufficient support from evidence, but is proved false by a cumulative proof.

Sure I would. But I don't run an affirmative action program for religiously-based stupidity.

I have to comment on this. This is bias on your part. You conflate scientific concerns with religious ones. In some cases---very few---this is the case; but for the most part, IDers simply think, as I do, that Darwinism is bad science, and that it leads the whole field of biology down a blind alley. If this is the case, then why so facilely dismiss these concerns?

It's almost a backwards logic: if I admit there are problems here and there with Darwinism, this will embolden the Creationists, so I will counter every attempt to point out its shortcomings. Is this the scientific method?

This is the whole point of Cornelius' blog: for many, many Darwinists, Darwinism is the refutation of religion, and a validation of their agnosticism/atheism. Which, of course, is religion in reverse. And it might have been this way from the very beginning.

You mean ID's "prediction" that non-coding DNA would still have some use that ID made after-the-fact?

What about putative vestigial organs that turn out to have function?

You mean the Creationists' stupid misunderstanding of the word 'vestigial', which doesn't mean functionless but means having lost or been degraded from its original function?

What about this very column, where allopatric speciation, the accepted path to speciation, is called into question?

Allopatric speciation is only one of many forms of speciation. It's been confirmed as a mechanism a hundred times over is only being questioned in this specific case.

Does this slow you down?

No. None of ID's goofy claims are even noticed by real science. No evidence = no slow down.

Worse than that, you still have this inane idea that if ToE is suddenly disproven that ID wins by default. That's not how science works. You need to bring your own positive evidence to the party, not just take shots at everyone else's theories.

I invite you again to read Fleeming Jenkin's objections to, and rejection of, Darwin's theory.

What possible relevance can a 140 year old 'refutation' have to the modern theory we use now?

Thorton: "Sure I would. But I don't run an affirmative action program for religiously-based stupidity."

I dismiss them for the same reason I dismiss the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. You have NO evidence to make your case, NONE at all.

The real question is: Does Darwinism have evidence supporting it?

I mentioned Fleeming Jenkin. He was a contemporary of Darwin. Even in his critique of Darwin's theory, he acknowledged that not only was the theory highly plausible when it advanced the idea that slight betterments could accrue, but he felt there was evidence for it. He also thought Darwin was due much credit for the way in which he cleverly presented his theory---a keen insight, he thought. In his critique, there is not even a hint of religious motivation . In fact, he says that the criticisms of those who oppose Darwin's ideas simply on religious grounds, are to be dismissed.

Nevertheless, he neither saw the possibility that truly novel species could arise via Darwin's proposed theory, nor did he see evidence of it.

At the end of his 22 page critique, he judged Darwin's theory proven false, based not on the facts that Darwin adduced, but simply on rational grounds. And he said no matter how plausible a theory, we should not accept it until it was proven true.

That was 145 years ago. If it was logically falsifiable then, what makes it logically true now?

ID---which is actually an outgrowth of advances in molecular biology---simply takes the arguments Jenkin advanced in 1867, and gives them further substance. What he rejected 'in theory', we can point to 'in fact'.

Even then, in 1867, Jenkin wondered, based on Darwin's notion that species plasticity remains undiminished up to even the "class" level, why breeders couldn't turn a dog into a cat. (Huxley had similar reservations) That, to me, remains the challenge. But we don't even have a hint that it is possible.

That's what ID is about. Not the religious motivations you ascribe to it. IMHO,you employ the "Creationist" ad hominem only because it makes it easy for you to comfortably turn away from all the evidence which logically contradicts Darwinian suppositions. Science suffers in the meantime.

You mean ID's "prediction" that non-coding DNA would still have some use that ID made after-the-fact?

BTW, I think you're making an "after-the-fact evaluation of what really happened. A little Monday-morning quarterbacking of the actual debate. Jonathan Wells has, of course, written a book on the entire debate.

That's what ID is about. Not the religious motivations you ascribe to it.

Sorry PaV, that's still bullcrap no matter how many times you repeat it. If ID had even the slightest bit of scientific merit it would do research and publish results like every other science. But it doesn't.

Science suffers in the meantime.

(Looks at the over 2.6 million articles published on all aspects of evolution in the last hundred years. Looks at the thousands of colleges and university labs still producing positive evidence. Looks at the hundreds of successful biotech companies that use the evolutionary paradigm for their work.

Then looks at the professional liars of the Discovery Institute, and the clown circus that is Uncommonly Dense)

Science doesn't seem to be suffering too much to me PaV.

Jonathan Wells has, of course, written a book on the entire debate.

LOL! Sure thing PaV. "Moonie" Wells writes a popular press propaganda rag to make money off the IDiot true believers. That sure carries a lot of weight in the scientific community.

The power of ID is its "explanatory power". It makes more sense out of what modern molecular biology finds out each day. With time, Darwin will be able to explain less and less, and ID more and more. That's my prediction. What's yours? ;)

If ID is all about religious motives, then why are even atheists its defenders and promoters? Why would an atheist want to promote religion, even indirectly? But, alas, I think you're not ready to change your mind here.

As to "evidence" for Darwinian evolution, your link to Talks.Origins has a section on "speciation events", which interests me the most. But why do they call them "speciation" events? Why aren't they called "sub-species" events?

They talk about maize and radishes and cabbage--brought about via hybridization. The proper word for it: artificial selection. They talk about Drosophila. And, again, most of this work is done in labs, and has all the hallmarks of artificial selection. I find nothing compelling in this evidence. This is the problem I have with Darwinism.

For me, the heart of the issue is this: are "varieties" variations of stable species, or, are they variations on their way to divergence from their parent species?

There are ~2,000,000 species alive now. There are millions more that are extinct. If each one was the result of evolution, then a lot of evolution has been happening. I, for one, would expect to see a lot more evidence. If evolution can turn into blue whales, it is a powerful force. I, for one, would expect to see more evidence. But we keep on finding things that have to be explained away, "just because it could have happened doesn't mean it had to happen" in this case. And most of the evidence is indirect, and based on inference. And it requires so much apologetics like, horizontal gene transfer or deep homology. But when bring this up, people call me ignorant, and tell me to have faith in scientists.

There are ~2,000,000 species alive now. There are millions more that are extinct. If each one was the result of evolution, then a lot of evolution has been happening. I, for one, would expect to see a lot more evidence.

Where have you looked besides Answers In Genesis?

Here is a partial list of professional science journals that cover evolutionary topics:

Anthropology Journals

American AnthropologistAmerican ArchaeologyAmerican AntiquityAmerican Journal of ArchaeologyAmerican Journal of Human GeneticsAnnual Review of AnthropologyAnthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural HistoryAntiquityArchaeologyArchaeometryBulletin de la Société Préhistorique FrançaiseCourier Forschungsinstitut SenckenbergCurrent AnthropologyCurrent Research in the PleistoceneEnvironmental ArchaeologyEvolution and Human BehaviorFolia PrimtolgicaHomoHuman BiologyInternational Journal of PrimatologyJournal of Anthropological ArchaeologyJournal of Anthropological ResearchJournal of Archaeological Method and TheoryJournal of Archaeological ScienceJournal of Ecological AnthropologyJournal of Human EvolutionJournal of the Royal Anthropological InstituteJournal of World PrehistoryLithic TechnologyMankind QuaterlyMaryland Essays in Human BiodiversityPALAIOSPalanthWorld ArchaeologyAmerican Journal of Physical AnthropologyTree-Ring Bulletin

Biology and General Science Journals

American Journal of BotanyAmerican Journal of Human GeneticsAmerican Museum of Natural History Research LibraryAmerican ScientistAnimal Biodiversity and ConservationAnatomischer AnzeigerAnatomy, Anthropology, Embryology, and HistologyAnnals of AnatomyBiological BulletinBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietyBiological Procedures OnlineBioMed Central journalsBioScienceBotanical ReviewBulletin of the Ecological Society of AmericaCanadian Society for Forensic Science JournalCellChinese Science BulletinComptes Rendus de l’Académie de SciencesCurrent ScienceEcological Society of America JournalsEuropean Journal of Cell BiologyEvolutionEvolution: Education and OutreachFlorida EntomologistForensic Science InternationalGeneticsGenome ResearchIntegrative and Comparative BiologyInternational Journal of Plant SciencesJournal of Biological ResearchJournal of BiologyJournal of Evolutionary BiologyJournal of Experimental BiologyJournal of Forensic SciencesJournal of GeneticsJournal of Mammalian EvolutionJournal of MammalogyJournal of Molecular EvolutionJournal of Tropical BiologyMaryland Essays in Human BiodiversityMolecular Biology and EvolutionMolecular Phylogenetics and EvolutionNatureNatural HistoryNew ScientistPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal SocietyPlos: Public Library of ScienceProceedings of the American Philosophical SocietyProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesProceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of ScienceProceedings of the Royal Irish AcademyQuarterly Review of BiologyRaffles Bulletin of ZoologyScienceScientific AmericanSouth African Journal of ScienceTentacleTheoretical Applied GeneticsTransactions of the Royal Society of LondonTurkish Journal of ZoologyZoological Studies

Yet, evolutionists think skeptics are wrong to question supposed whale evolution that is said to have occured in less than 10 million years (perhaps even 2 million years).

Evolutionists seem to have some success when they can cherry pick fossils from every corner of the earth to build a scenario of "transitionals" that support their foregone conclusions. When they investigate one location with a well preserved and lengthy fossil record the pattern does not support their theory.

What an incredible collection from the La Brea Tar Pits. Yet no evolution there either.

They say they found a transitional fossil, or series, and then they find something that throws it off. There was Ida and Tiktaalik. Now the whales. Even the status or archaeopteryx asa bird ancestor is questioned. This is beginning to look like a pattern.

They say they found a transitional fossil, or series, and then they find something that throws it off. There was Ida and Tiktaalik. Now the whales. Even the status or archaeopteryx asa bird ancestor is questioned. This is beginning to look like a pattern.

LOL! Looks like natschuster has finally come out of his Creationist closet and is joining Tedford in displaying his ignorance and stupidity. Maybe the two can be the board's co-idiots. Tag team and spell each other.

The new fossil find that nat is frothing over doesn't negatively affect whale evolution even a little bit. All it does is show one particular limb on the branching tree happened earlier than previously thought. Science modifies its understanding based on new evidence. That's why it's science and not religion.

Maybe nat can give us his Creationist explanation for the spatial and temporal distribution of the 3+ billion year fossil record, including the 600+ million year record of multi-celled animals. Tedford the idiot was too cowardly to even try.

If that's too much nat, maybe you can explain the 3+ million year history of trilobites that show major morphological changes, even up to the new genera level. Tedford won't touch that one either.

The whale finding means that the actual ancestor is still missing. Same thing with the archaeopteryx. If the ancestors really existed, why can't we find them? We keep on finding side branches, but not the real ancestors. Of course, the standard answer is that the fossil record is incomplete.

Where are the original Ten Commandments stones? Jesus's house in Nazareth? Your direct ancestors going back 20 generations graves? Did they really exist ? These are only yesterday in geological time,it should be easy to locate.

Didn't the article on trilobites say that it was the average number of ribs per species that change. Doesn't that mean that there is intraspecies variation? So maybe the increase in the number of ribs was within normal species variation? I onw that the authors said that they where different species, but that is speculative.

The paleantologist where very happy find a series of fossil frompakicetus through ambulocetues showing variying degree of adaptation to an aquatic life. But if they found a fully aquatic whale, older than ambulocetus, it means that ambulocetus was nto the real ancestor of fully aquatic whales. The real ancestor is still missing.

I don't have millions of ancestors. There was only one set of tne commandments. There must have been millions of ancestral species. Every species that eist now must have an ancestor. I would expect to find a few more, but that's just me.

Didn't the article on trilobites say that it was the average number of ribs per species that change. Doesn't that mean that there is intraspecies variation? So maybe the increase in the number of ribs was within normal species variation? I onw that the authors said that they where different species, but that is speculative.

LOL! Now that nat's out of the closet he's going to start handwaving and avoiding evidence like a real Creationist.

The evidence doesn't show normal intraspecies variation. The evidence shows a distinct pattern of evolving more ribs over 3MY in at least eight different lineages.

The paleantologist where very happy find a series of fossil frompakicetus through ambulocetues showing variying degree of adaptation to an aquatic life. But if they found a fully aquatic whale, older than ambulocetus, it means that ambulocetus was nto the real ancestor of fully aquatic whales. The real ancestor is still missing.

No, it means there is more than one lineage leading to the extant species we see today. Are you really that dense nat?

I don't have millions of ancestors.

Actually, you do.

There was only one set of tne commandments.

Aah, now the true science comes out!

There must have been millions of ancestral species.

There were over the last 3 billion years.

Every species that eist now must have an ancestor.

They do.

I would expect to find a few more, but that's just me.

Where have you been looking? You can do a Google Scholar search and find information about the ancestors of pretty much every extant species. That you choose to be a willfully ignorant dolt is your problem, not science's.

The chart seems to indincate that the number of ribs varies within species. The avergae number of ribs in each lineage seemed to increase by only one or two one the average. That could mean that the change was within nomral species variation. Of course, I might be reading the chart wrong.

I'm trying to understand your explanation for the whale fossil. I understand you to be saying that the newly found fossil is the ancestor of one lineage. And the line going through ambulocetus and rhodocetus, (did I spell it right?) lead up to modern whales. But the fossil jawbone is that of a basilosaurid, which, according to paleantologists is close to the ancestors of modern whales, so I'm not sure your way will work,

Scott: Apparently, Nat seems to think theories must be exhaustively true and should never become more accurate as well. Nat, perhaps you can explain why this would be a reasonable, or even rational, expectation?

Nat: The whale finding means that the actual ancestor is still missing.

Which did not address my question in the least.

Are you denying that you think theories should be exhaustively true and that they should never become more accurate?

If not, then perhaps you could outline, in detail, how could any theory could be exhaustively true or not become any more accurate?

Thanks for the response. You seem to be expecting science to uncover the direct ancestor, instead of 500 years for you,it is 500 million years. That would make it harder right? That is that half of it, in that 500 years you have several hundred direct ancestors, but the side branches of your family tree contain many thousands. So you would have a better chance of finding a cousin than a grandparent? So it is less likely to find a direct line,make sense?

Thanks for the feedback. I enjoyed reading your posts and agree that the macro-evolution narrative is quite a fantastic tale, usually believed by only the most die hard atheists or God hating skeptics. They have to buy into this junk because its the only game in town for them.

It's pretty funny how these guys spin the facts so that everything proves (macro)evolution to be true. In other words, its unfalsifiable. If we observe changes, that's proof of (macro)evolution, and if we don't observe changes, that's ALSO proof of (macro)evolution! If changes happen gradually, that's proof of (macro)evolution, and if new body plans spring into the fossil record out of nowhere, well that's ALSO proof of (macro)evolution!

As for me, I couldn't care less if any of this stuff is true or not. My beliefs in God and Christianity have nothing to do with the evidence or lack of evidence for macro-evolution. But its funny to watch the God haters, they yell so loudly and vociferously. I guess they think if they can convince others of their foolish beliefs they can somehow escape the coming judgement.

There is of course a difference between being falsifiable and being falsified. Gravity is certainly falsifiable, and yet it has never actually been falsified.

When Uranus didn't follow the path predicted by gravity we didn't immediately call gravity falsified, even though a very specific prediction was most definitely falsified. We searched for reasons why it might deviate from that path, and in so doing discovered a new planet, Nepture.

When Mercury didn't follow the path predicted by gravity, we didn't immediately abandon it, again in spite of a specific prediction being falsified. We figured out why it deviated and modified the theory to account for it, thus was born Relativity.

Even today, the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate, an observation that directly contradicts our predictions based on gravity. This is a specific falsification for which we have no answer yet.

So why aren't you screaming about how gravity has been repeatedly falsified both now and in the past? Why isn't it considered ridiculous to keep "propping up" this theory by modifying it or by straight up inventing things like "dark matter"? If I didn't know better I'd say you had some kind of ulterior motive that makes you treat one theory in a fundamentally different way than you treat the other.

I don't really see gravity and macro-evolution as the same sort of theory. Gravity is measurable and reproducible. The fact that other forces exist in the Universe which affect gravity doesn't undermine it.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, reminds me alot of geocentrism. The more evidence we find that flatly contradicts its predictions, the more the Darwinists create "just so" stories or ad hoc explanations to sweep these contradictions under the rug, very similar to the epicycles of geocentrism. Stasis, punctuated equilibrium, etc are examples of this.

If macro-evolution were true, I'd expect to see insurmountable evidence that no one would ever be able to contradict. I'd expect to see these lizards on these islands growing wings, or evolving to species with 3 eyes, or becoming warm blooded. I'd expect to see humans with gills, or chimpanzees composing music.

Instead what I observe is that basic kinds of animals always stay that kind of animal, even if they change in minor ways to adapt to their environment. It's a bit like an anti-virus program updating itself on a regular basis to keep up with all the latest threats, rather than Microsoft Word turning into Knights of the Old Republic after several accidental modifications to the code.

From a theological perspective, I don't have a dog in the hunt. I'm not against evolution. I would only say that if (macro)evolution really did happen it would have required an input of information that would prove the existence of a Designer beyond the shadow of any doubt.

Regarding your observation of the expansion of the Universe, it is interesting to read the scriptures which say that:

Zechariah 12:1 (NIV)

This is the word of the Lord concerning Israel. The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares

There is so much direct evidence for gravity, that maybe it makes more sense to consider the anomalies just that, anomalies, and wait for an answer. But the evidence for evolution is so spotty, and the problems are so big, that maybe we shoudl think about discarding.

And Newtonian Gravity was, in fact, overturned. So maybe the same thing will happen to evolution.

Nat: There is so much direct evidence for gravity, that maybe it makes more sense to consider the anomalies just that, anomalies, and wait for an answer.

You're ignoring our explanation for WHY It makes sense, and only selectively applying it in the case of gravity.

All of the observations you're referring to, while being overwhelming, are just a drop in the bucket compared to all of the places in the universes where we haven't observed gravity. Not to mention all of the billions of years we weren't observing evidence for gravity because we didn't exist yet.

Nat: But the evidence for evolution is so spotty, and the problems are so big, that maybe we shoudl think about discarding.

One could say that, as a whole, the evidence for gravity is so spotty, the gap is so big and astronomically unlikely. Should we think about discarding it as well?

All of the observations evidence we have for gravity could also be explained by an army of slide rule toting demons who, for some unexplainable reason, have decided to pull and push objects according to their mass in our local vicinity, only for the last million years ago, and to pull differently on the very small and scale and in conditions of very high energy.

Given our massive lack of observations, as a whole, then why shouldn't we discard gravity for demons?

You might ask, why would demons want to pull on and push on objects, and in that exact, particular way? that's just what the demons must have wanted.

So, why don't we have as much "direct evidence" for the slide rule toting demons I described above?

Despite being "astronomically" unlikely from a statistical perspective, gravity plays a key role in explaining the entire universe's existence. It's part of space and time. So, in all of those cases we're not observing gravity, the lack of it would have a huge impact that would disagree with all of our *current* theories about how the system works as a whole.

It's only when we take the theory of gravity serious, that the idea of solar system, galaxies, etc. make sense, because they play a key role in explanting them.

I'd also note that gravity plays a very specific and hard to vary role in this explanation. That is, you can't easily change the theory of gravity without significantly impacting it's ability to play it's current role in explaining what we observe. And the rest of our theories depend on this role.

In other words, gravity is a good explanation because it's part of a long, hard to vary chain of explanations.

On the other hand, an abstract designer can be easily varied without significantly impacting it's ability to explain what we observe. How may designers were there? how did they manage to change just he genes they wanted to modify, while leaving the remaining genes unchanged? How did they know which genes to modify so they could get the results they wanted, etc.

The abstract designer(s) isn't connected to what we observe though any other theory except though the claim of being a "designer".

In other words, "an abstract deigned did it" is a bad explanation because it's It's completely self contained, rather than being part of a long chain, and easily varied.

Every time we see a rock drop, it is direct evidence for gravity. And we do tend to see things in the universe, at below galatic scale obeying the law of gravity. More direect evidence. Most of the evidence for evolution that I see is exatrpolations from things like bacteria developing anti-biotic resistance whiel still remaining bacteria. Saying that gravity is caused by demons that push and pull according to an inverse square law doesn't contradict gravity at all. To the best of my konwledge, Newton never explained why gravity works. It could be demons. And maybe, we should discard Newtonian gravity, anyway. Too many anomalies. like dark energy, dark matter, etc.

Nat, it predicts lots of stuff. It works well enough. Someone can calculate how to go from the earth to rendezvous with an asteroid ,millions of miles away. If you discard something that useful ,you have to have something more useful.

Every time we see bacteria develop anti-biotic resistance, it is direct evidence for evolution

And we do tend to see things in the universe, at below galatic scale obeying the law of gravity.

And we tend to see things in biology below species scale obeying the theory of evolution.

Most of the evidence for evolution that I see is exatrpolations from things like bacteria developing anti-biotic resistance whiel still remaining bacteria.

Most of the evidence for gravity that I see is extrapolations from things like a falling rock while remaining just a rock and not becoming, say, a planet.

Ultimately what you are saying is that we can observe small scale events like a rock dropping and extrapolate from that large scale events like the formation of planets (which has never been directly observed), but we can't observe small scale events like bacteria developing resistance to anti-biotics and extrapolate from that large scale events like speciation.

Here's a little secret. Science is absolutely replete with extrapolations from small scale observations to large scale effects. You accept that without question in every other branch of science, but refuse to even consider the idea of that when it comes to evolution. Why is that?

Saying that gravity is caused by demons that push and pull according to an inverse square law doesn't contradict gravity at all.

And as so many IDiots have said so many times, saying that speciation, or the formation of "new genetic information" by a designer doesn't contradict evolution either. That's why there are YEC IDiots, OEC IDiots, IDiots that say that UCD is impossible, and IDiots that say that UCD is a fact. If tomorrow someone came up with a way to directly observe evolution from the first living creature to humans in precise morphological and genetic detail, ID would still be able to claim that that's just exactly how the designer wanted it.

It's pretty funny how these guys spin the facts so that everything proves (macro)evolution to be true.

Spin the facts? No, the facts fit the theory, end of story.

This is not because it is unfalsifiable (ToE is highly falsifiable, as any scientific theory should be, unlike practically any supernatural or religious claim), but because it fits the facts. I see no reason this should be a problem.

And the evidence for (macro)evolution is there for all to see. Still.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

As for me, I couldn't care less if any of this stuff is true or not. My beliefs in God and Christianity have nothing to do with the evidence or lack of evidence for macro-evolution.

Of course not. Because your religious beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. They are not rational and reasoned conclusions drawn from the available data. They are dogma which you will defend to the end no matter what contradictory evidence is presented.

But its funny to watch the God haters, they yell so loudly and vociferously. I guess they think if they can convince others of their foolish beliefs they can somehow escape the coming judgement.

Funny how anyone presenting inconvenient things like facts and data which don't fit in with the religious superstitions are labelled 'God-haters' who resent that their atheism damns them.

I can see why people say religion and science are incompatible. It's not that religion is scientifically provably wrong, but the mindsets are utterly at odds. The religious think claim to have all the answers and any evidence found to the contrary is to be dismissed at any cost.

Of course not. Because your religious beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. They are not rational and reasoned conclusions drawn from the available data.

You really don't know me at all. My beliefs have everything to do with the evidence. And the evidence is profound.

You've never presented any shred of evidence to me (other than wild conspiracy stories) that my beliefs are false. But if you want to present a case for atheism please feel free to.

Demonstrate to me how the universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. Then explain to me why it is fine tuned for life. Then tell me how the first life formed. Then show me compelling evidence of how a bacteria can eventually transform into a whale. Then explain to me why morality exists (or explain why it doesn't).

I am interested in your evidence for your beliefs,would you mind going into it? Since I am neither an atheist nor a God hater( how can one hate something they don't believe exists?) perhaps your evidence will be compelling.

Why do you think God is so weak that He couldn't have used evolution over the last 3.3+ billion years as His mechanism?

I agree that God certainly could use the process of macro-evolution to create the diversity of life we see on Earth and am open to that possibility.

So far the evidence from the fossil record seems to indicate that new types of animals appeared on the scene instantaneously, rather than from a gradual process. Additionally, the evidence we see when we look at animal populations like the bacteria in laboratories or the lizards on these islands appears to indicate that even though minor changes can and do occur over a period of time, these animals do not transform into another completely different kind of animal.

But if we discover compelling evidence of this in the future, so be it. I don't have a dog in the hunt either way.

I am interested in your evidence for your beliefs,would you mind going into it?

Sure. A short list would be:

1) The origin of the Universe out of nothing.2) The fine tuning of the Universe.3) The origin of life4) The complexity of life, including the origin of extremely sophisticated biological structures like DNA.5) The argument from morality.6) The historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.7) Sociological evidence (i.e. people who live moral lives according to the scripture tend to have longer, healthier, and happier lives).8) The Shroud of Turin9) The Sudarium of Oviedo.10) Archeological evidence which confirms biblical accounts.11) Fulfilled prophecy12) The general conditions of the world and human behavior, which matches what we learn from scripture.

Since I am neither an atheist nor a God hater( how can one hate something they don't believe exists?) perhaps your evidence will be compelling.

This is a great question! Perhaps some of the atheists can explain this phenomena better than I can.

Some see a state of combat. Some see understanding. Some desire combat. Some desire understanding. Regardless of either, both are fundamental. Both are ultimately religious and will be defended as such.

You've never presented any shred of evidence to me (other than wild conspiracy stories) that my beliefs are false.

Well that's debatable, to say the least. A more accurate statement would be that you have dismissed all evidence I have presented as 'wild speculation' because it does not correlate with what your religious leaders tell you.

But if you want to present a case for atheism please feel free to.

Easy - there is insufficient solid evidence for any single religion to conclude that it is probably true. It's that simple.

Demonstrate to me how the universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing.

Strawman. An atheist does not necessarily need to believe this.

Then explain to me why it is fine tuned for life.

The mind-warpingly VAST majority of it is not. How can we call it 'finely-tuned for life' when the necessary conditions for life are confined to such a staggeringly tiny spec of it?

Then tell me how the first life formed.

I don't know. It's a mystery. Which is a perfectly reasonable answer in science. And it does not logically justify the popular religious suffix '...therefore it was God'.

Then show me compelling evidence of how a bacteria can eventually transform into a whale.

Because human beings are a sociable species. And an essential part of sociability and co-operation is established rules about how to interact with others. This is no great mystery.

I'm listening. Tell me why atheism is true and Christianity is false.

Again, it's not that I can prove Christianity is false any more than I can prove Santa Claus or unicorns don't exist. But, like scepticism of them, atheism is the rational default position until compelling evidence for their existence can be presented.

WG: But its funny to watch the God haters, they yell so loudly and vociferously. I guess they think if they can convince others of their foolish beliefs they can somehow escape the coming judgement.

WG,

Your religious motivation becomes clear as an abstract designer could have designed us so we die and that's it. An abstract designer could have designed us without a plan to judge anyone for anything.

In other words, I don't have to avoid an abstract designer out of fear of these things because it's not necessary for an abstract designer to do them. Nor would it be necessary for an abstract supernatural designer.

Humanities earliest conceptions of supernatural beings had no moral axis. For example, one tribe thought the god of thunder got upset when watching dogs mate or if human beings melted bee's wax. When asked why they melted bee's wax anyway, they said they hoped the thunder god wouldn't notice.

It's only when you assume that Yahweh is the designer, including all of the assumptions this entails, that you'd have an argument. But these assumptions represent religious dogma in which the specific details are easily varied, like all the other myths.

In the Greed myth of the seasons, Persephone, the goddess of spring, is entered into a forced marriage contract with Hades. She escapes, but is magically forced to return every year. When she returns, this makes Demeter, goddess of the earth, sad, which causes winter.

However, we could just as easily come up with some other permutation of these charters, which describes the same thing, but is every much the opposite of the original myth.

For example, rather than being magically compelled to return, one could claim that Persephone returns every year to take vengeance on Hades, banishes heat from his domain, which rises and causes summer. This explains the same thing, but describes opposite state of affairs as found in the original myth. And since the characters are only connected to seasons though the myth itself, it's easily varied.

In the same sense, why couldn't Yahweh just forgive us, rather than have part of himself become 100% man and 100% god, die as a human sacrifice, be resurrected, then return back to himself?

Again, since Yahweh / Jesus are only connected through salavation though the salvation narrative itself, one could just as easily come up with some other set of requirements for eternal life. It's easily varied.

In other words, why would this set of requirements be necessary for salvation, rather than some other set of requirements?

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I agree that belief systems surrounding the ancient polytheistic gods were quite silly. In fact, did you know that the early Christians were called atheists by the pagan Romans because they rejected all of these polytheistic gods?

The only real question you asked me was:

In the same sense, why couldn't Yahweh just forgive us, rather than have part of himself become 100% man and 100% god, die as a human sacrifice, be resurrected, then return back to himself?

It's funny you should ask me this. Just a few days ago I was listening on youtube to a William Lane Craig debate where he is debating a Muslim scholar and is confronted with this very question.

I'm unable to watch this video at the moment, so I'll have to respond later.

However, I noticed you did not respond to the following..

Scott: In other words, I don't have to avoid an abstract designer out of fear of these things because it's not necessary for an abstract designer to do them. Nor would it be necessary for an abstract supernatural designer.

I'm guessing Craig will make claims about Yahweh / Jesus that are not necessarily for abstract supernatural design. Specifically, Yahwah not forgiving us does not necessitate a decision to give us eternal life. Nor does not "forgiving us" necessitate eternal punishment.

For example, why couldn't Yahwaw not forgive us, yet still create us as begins that cease to exists when we die. Again, if this is the case, there would be nothing for me to escape. Why not reward believers with eternal life, while everyone else ceases to exist?

Furthermore, it's unclear why we have a chance to be forgiven until we die. Why is our death the boundary in which we cannot change our mind?

In other words, all of these things appear arbitrary dogma, rather than functional components of a long, hard to vary explanation.

It seems to me as though you are not really interested in presenting a positive case for atheism, you just want to sit back and make petty complaints about other belief systems that you disagree with.

I appreciate it might seem so from your perspective, but really, this IS a positive case for atheism. We SHOULD be sceptical of claims until we have reasonable evidence to accept them. We do not have reasonable evidence to accept any given religion. (If we did, we would not need to have faith in them.) Thus atheism really is the rational default position.

The onus for evidence is on those who make the claims, and it is the theist, not the atheist, that makes the claims about God.

I'm still at a loss for an explanation of why you think the Universe is here. Do you just not know, or do you have a theory?

I do not have such a theory. The universe simply IS here. Asking why seems as pointless as asking why the wind is blowing in this particular direction, or why is is raining today rather than sunny. It just is.

You also seem unwilling to concede the fine tuning of the laws of physics. This indicates that you are just a close minded ideologue who is not willing to consider any rational evidence.

Slow down - I do concede the universe is finely tuned. That is to say, I agree that the set of conditions that produces such a universe as this is probably extremely improbable. What I do not agree is that this is evidence of a 'tinkerer' or designer.

To use an analogy, a particular lotto outcome is extremely improbable. A string of 6 particular numbers between 1 and 49 has odds of about 14 million to one. But if you draw 6 such numbers, that does not mean the lotto was rigged by some outside designer, or that destiny or some such supernatural force intervened.

I would also like to address you list of apparent evidence:

1) The origin of the Universe out of nothing.

How is this evidence for your beliefs? Isn't this just God of the Gaps logic? You have a mystery and a myth - a just-so story.

2) The fine tuning of the Universe.

Same rebuttal.

3) The origin of life

Same rebuttal.

4) The complexity of life, including the origin of extremely sophisticated biological structures like DNA.

Which is nigh-on non-existant. Without wishing to rehash our first epic debate, there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for Jesus whatsoever. And what slowly accumulates is weak, vague and biased at best. You were claiming evidence written centuries after the fact by Christian scribes as rock-solid historical evidence.

7) Sociological evidence (i.e. people who live moral lives according to the scripture tend to have longer, healthier, and happier lives).

Can you source this please? Indeed relatively high rates of atheism are generally found in the states with the lowest crime rates and countries with the highest happiness rates.

8) The Shroud of Turin

What evidence seperates this from the multitude of holy relics which were undoubtedly fakes, or people seeing the face of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich?

9) The Sudarium of Oviedo.

Same rebuttal

10) Archeological evidence which confirms biblical accounts.

There is an awful lot which is contradicted by archeology. To pick an example off the top of my head, there is no total collapse of the Egyptian empire such as much surely have followed the staggering catastrophes of the Ten Plagues. In fact, most sources date the Exodus to the height of Egypt's emperial power, making the story utterly ludicrous.

11) Fulfilled prophecy

And the unfulfilled ones...?

12) The general conditions of the world and human behavior, which matches what we learn from scripture.

I can imagine a world where we see angels sitting high above the clouds when we look out of the windows of aeroplanes. I can imagine a huge gate somewhere in the Middle East which is forever barred from us humans, but through which can be glimpsed a delightful paradise. I can imagine a world when prayers are replied to with an audible voice actually answering our questions, even if it is to to refuse our requests for favours or explanations. I can imagine a world where pwople can summon astonishing miracles on command repeatably and reliably just through the power of prayer. We do not live in such a world.

Velikovskys,Oh, any of them, I'd imagine. There are a few, though, that encourage inquiry.

Ritchie: "Which is nigh-on non-existant. Without wishing to rehash our first epic debate, there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for Jesus whatsoever. And what slowly accumulates is weak, vague and biased at best. You were claiming evidence written centuries after the fact by Christian scribes as rock-solid historical evidence."

Using this line or reasoning, do you believe there will be ample evidence to prove you have ever existed after you have died?

I guess I didn't respond to that because I don't have anything to say about it. This isn't really a competition for me. If you think you've found a better way of looking at reality then good for you.

For example, why couldn't Yahwaw not forgive us, yet still create us as begins that cease to exists when we die

Many Christians believe this is what actually happens (or some variation of this). This position is called annihilationism, where the wicked cease to exist, usually after a judgement. I ardently defended this position for many years and am still very sympathetic to this point of view, although I concede that the other side (everlasting torment) has some valid points to it as well.

Furthermore, it's unclear why we have a chance to be forgiven until we die. Why is our death the boundary in which we cannot change our mind?

Some Christians believe this to be the case as well, and for many years I defended this theory quite ardently. I am still strongly sympathetic to this idea and think that at least some people will have a chance for a post mortem conversion (like young children who never matured to the point where they could make moral decisions or perhaps even people who died in ignorance of God's plan of salvation).

What is your criteria for a "real" question?

No, I was just saying that you only asked me one question in your last post. Most of your last post was discussing the ridiculous things that ancient pagans used to believe (and I agree with you that they believed in some pretty ridiculous things).

Interesting study, apparently there a differences in atheists. They refer to emotional atheism. The paper and references seem a little touchy/ feely.For a skeptic as yourself,I am surprised you accepted this study at face value. Thanks for the evidence,a little pressed at work , I will take time later.

Smith,I like inquiry but sometimes I don't care at all. Which religious belief is that? I like hot dogs with chili, jalapeños ,and cheese, does this religious belief conflict with my love of enchiladas religion? It kinda seems if everything is a religious belief that makes the term meaningless. Where have I gone astray?

The onus for evidence is on those who make the claims, and it is the theist, not the atheist, that makes the claims about God

I think that's the way you see it. But the way that my mind works is that I like to have a best available hypothesis that explains as much of the data as possible.

To me the atheistic worldview is woefully lacking in explanatory power as it never answers the questions about the origin of the universe or the origin of life and makes outrageous claims about the self-organizational properties of matter.

I just cannot bring myself to buy into these outlandish claims. Nor am I content to just shrug my shoulders and say I don't know. In my opinion Christianity offers the most answers to these types of questions and has the best supporting evidence.

The universe simply IS here. Asking why seems as pointless as asking why the wind is blowing in this particular direction

This really is no answer at all, and I could never adopt this kind of laissez faire attitude about reality, especially when things like eternal life are potentially at stake.

a particular lotto outcome is extremely improbable. A string of 6 particular numbers between 1 and 49 has odds of about 14 million to one. But if you draw 6 such numbers

The issue is not a particular set of numbers, all of which are equally improbable. The issue is getting a set of numbers that matches a specified pattern. For example, if I go to a Casino and play Blackjack 200 times in a row then ANY set of cards that I draw will be extremely unlikely to happen.

But what if I draw a King and an Ace 200 times in a row? The people who run the Casino are likely to think that I am rigging the game (and they would be correct) - because this particular independent pattern leads to me winning every hand. In a similar fashion all of these constants in physics lead to a universe capable of supporting life.

1) The origin of the Universe out of nothing.

How is this evidence for your beliefs?

Because the scriptures tell us that God created the Universe ex nihilo. And now finally in the 20th and 21st centuries we see that the Universe did indeed begin at a finite point in the past ex nihilo.

Sociological evidence... Can you source this please?

The sociological evidence is pretty darn strong. I've actually thought about writing a book on this topic as I feel this is one of the great unexplored areas of Christian apologetics. Suffice it to say that if I ever reverted to atheism again I would continue to live as a Christian in order to benefit from the lifestyle as much as possible.

Researchers around the world have repeatedly found that devoutly religious people tend to do better in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages and be generally happier.

What evidence seperates this from the multitude of holy relics which were undoubtedly fakes

I'm pretty skeptical about relics also. In fact, up until a few years ago I thought the Shroud of Turin was a Catholic fake, even though I was a fully committed Christian who completely believed in the historical resurrection of Jesus.

Then one day I heard the topic being discussed at forthcoming apologetics conference and I started looking into it. I was completely blown away by what I found. I now believe that the Shroud is a miraculous relic that absolutely proves the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus described in the New Testament.

Look, if you ever have a spare hour or two, listen to this series of youtube videos from Jewish STURP photographer Barrie Schwortz. It's a pretty good place to get started on researching the topic.

WG: But its funny to watch the God haters, they yell so loudly and vociferously. I guess they think if they can convince others of their foolish beliefs they can somehow escape the coming judgement.

Scott: In other words, I don't have to avoid an abstract designer out of fear of these things because it's not necessary for an abstract designer to do them. Nor would it be necessary for an abstract supernatural designer.

WG: I guess I didn't respond to that because I don't have anything to say about it. This isn't really a competition for me. If you think you've found a better way of looking at reality then good for you.

That's my point. That a designer would choose to give us eternal human life, was perfectly just and therefore judge everyone, etc, is your personally preferred world view, not a necessary conclusion. It's easily varied. As such, it's a bad explanation.

That either we accept a supernatural designer and judgement, or reject a designer and reject judgement, is a false dilemma. Deism is one such example.

WG: Many Christians believe this is what actually happens (or some variation of this). This position is called annihilationism, where the wicked cease to exist, usually after a judgement.

Actually, I was referring to it not being necessary for a supernatural being to give anyone eternal life, in that we all cease to exist not as a punishment, but as simply the result the designer wanted. In other words, while I can see why you might *want* eternal life, this doesn't necessary mean that a designer would have to design so this occurred.

Or are you suggesting that a designer would have no choice in the matter?

WG: No, I was just saying that you only asked me one question in your last post. Most of your last post was discussing the ridiculous things that ancient pagans used to believe (and I agree with you that they believed in some pretty ridiculous things).

Scott: In the same sense, why couldn't Yahweh just forgive us, rather than have part of himself become 100% man and 100% god, die as a human sacrifice, be resurrected, then return back to himself?

WG: William Lane Craig answers this very question here.

Craig claims that a perfectly just being cannot "ignore" sin. But this is like saying, when the goddess of the earth is sad, the earth must get cold. I can see why someone might think these assumptions makes for a good narrative, but these assumptions are only "connected" by by the narrative itself.

For example, someone could just as well conclude that a just God couldn't allow someone else to to "pay" for another person's sins. Or that a just God couldn't allow someone to suffer eternally without the chance to learn from their punishment.

That a sin against a infinite being demands infinite punishment is yet another assumption. However, one could just as well suggest that an infinite being is impervious to the actions of a finite being. As such, God's infinite nature would nothing to do with the extent of our punishment. Nor is it clear how Jesus could be 100% man and 100% God, that his death could cover the sins of those yet to occur, etc.

Again, while all of these assumptions may make for a good narrative, these assumptions are only connected to salvation through the narrative itself, rather than playing a necessary functional role as part of a hard to vary explanation.

That a designer would choose to give us eternal human life, was perfectly just and therefore judge everyone, etc, is your personally preferred world view, not a necessary conclusion. It's easily varied. As such, it's a bad explanation.

I think you may have the wrong idea about me. I'm not some guy in a religious grocery store picking and choosing the doctrines that I want to believe in.

I believe in Christianity because I think it is the best evidenced out of all the competing worldviews. As a result, I read what the Christian scriptures say and take them at face value regarding what God is like and what His plans are for humanity. I'm not picking and choosing beliefs or making things up as I go along.

Deism is one such example.

Are you a deist? Why or why not?

I was referring to it not being necessary for a supernatural being to give anyone eternal life

Nor was it necessary for the Designer to give us two eyes or five fingers. Sure the Designer could have done things differently.

But see my above reply. I'm not making things up as I go along. My beliefs are based upon what is recorded in scripture as I see the Judeo-Christian worldview the best evidenced and most explanatory of all the competing worldviews.

Is it ridiculous because a designer must have a moral axis, or ?

It's ridiculous because most or all of those ancient pagan beliefs were ad hoc (pretty much what you seem to be accusing me of) and based upon a primitive understanding of the world, or created out of an emotional need for human beings to engage in some self-serving behavior.

Was there a point in going through the history and illustrating how stupid people used to be? Were you trying to imply that my beliefs are pretty much just the same thing?

If so, that is why I came back and pointed out that the ancient Jews and Christians rejected all of these false gods and belief systems. The Jews and Christians were remarkably different from the primitive pagans and were ostracized as a result of their rejection of man made gods.

Craig claims that a perfectly just being cannot "ignore" sin. But this is like saying, when the goddess of the earth is sad, the earth must get cold.

No, I think you missed his point. A perfectly JUST Being cannot ignore sin. There is a direct correlation. If a perfectly JUST Being turns a blind eye to sin and does nothing about it, that Being than immediately becomes an imperfectly Just being. It has nothing to do with a completely uncorrelated action like the earth becoming cold.

As such, God's infinite nature would nothing to do with the extent of our punishment.

See my previous reply. Many Christians disagree on the nature or longevity of the punishment of sinners. I agree with C.S. Lewis that sinners who are eternally separated from God are ultimately separated from Him because of their desires and not God's.

I used to not think this way, but after years of talking to atheists and other skeptics it is patently obvious to me that many of these people have made a conscious and willful decision that they want nothing to do with God and that they want to be their own god. And I have to admit I don't really see this deep seeded attitude dramatically changing just because they are brought back to life in a resurrection.

Again, while all of these assumptions may make for a good narrative, these assumptions are only connected to salvation through the narrative itself, rather than playing a necessary functional role as part of a hard to vary explanation.

Well, that is your opinion. And if you have a better explanation, I'm certainly willing to hear it. You should know up front though that I don't place alot of stock in things individual people make up on the spot and that are unevidenced.

Just wanted to say I think it's nice you always say thanks for replies. I'd thank you, but then you might thank me for thanking you for thanking me, and so on ad infinitum, so I'll just mention it this once. :D

To me the atheistic worldview is woefully lacking in explanatory power as it never answers the questions about the origin of the universe or the origin of life...

This is completely true. It also rather illustrates a flawed way of looking at atheism.

Atheism itself does not have any explanatory power on any topic. It is not a set of ideals, principles, guidelines or beliefs. Two atheists are not necessarily bound by any common belief or view. Christians may disagree over the details, but they must at least share a belief in Jesus Christ as their risen saviour (or however ones defines a Christian). They must share at least one common belief.

Most religions strive to answer questions such as where we/the universe came from, etc. As vague and unreliable as these usually turn out to be, they are, at least superficially, explanations. By contrast, Atheism by itself offers no explanations of its own. In this way, it is not a perfect substitute for religion - and also why it is absurd when religious people call atheism a religion.

So no, atheism is not a source of any answers at all. Any more than a non-belief in unicorns is a source of answers. But science is.

Religion tells just-so stories about the world we must all accept on absolute blind faith. Science makes demonstrable claims we can all repeat and check for ourselves. Why anyone would think it is wise to trust the former over the later as a source of knowledge is totally beyond me.

[Atheism] makes outrageous claims about the self-organizational properties of matter.

No, atheism makes no claims at all.

I'm not entirely sure which claims you are referring to specifically, but they sound like scientific claims. Again, why would anyone trust religion over science?

Nor am I content to just shrug my shoulders and say I don't know.

Then why don't you work towards finding out? That's what scientists do.

'I don't know' might be unsatisfying, but that does not justify making up answers, or blindly trusting other peoples' made-up ones either.

This really is no answer at all, and I could never adopt this kind of laissez faire attitude about reality, especially when things like eternal life are potentially at stake.

You mean you don't have this laissez faire attitude towards why the wind is blowing in the direction it is at the moment, or why the clouds you see in the sky are the shape that they are?

The human brain is wired towards finding patterns in meaningless chaos. This is nothing new to psychologists.

The issue is not a particular set of numbers, all of which are equally improbable. The issue is getting a set of numbers that matches a specified pattern.

But it is a pattern you have identified in retrospect. It is a pattern identified AFTER the fact, not BEFORE. That is the equivalent of picking your lotto numbers AFTER the draw.

But what if I draw a King and an Ace 200 times in a row? The people who run the Casino are likely to think that I am rigging the game

Only because it has been established BEFORE-HAND that kings and aces are good - the best in fact. No such comparison can be made in the case of the universe.

Because the scriptures tell us that God created the Universe ex nihilo. And now finally in the 20th and 21st centuries we see that the Universe did indeed begin at a finite point in the past ex nihilo.

For one thing, that is as specific as you can present the Biblical story of creation without being scientifically inaccurate. If you actually read the Genesis story, there is practically nothing there at all that is remotely scientifically credible.

Moreover, virtually every religion has a creation myth. Which means virtually every religion says the universe was created ex nihilo. If this is evidence for your Christian origin story, then it is also evidence for the creation stories of almost every religion in the history of humanity. So this does not support your particular creation myth to the exclusion of all others.

The sociological evidence is pretty darn strong. I've actually thought about writing a book on this topic as I feel this is one of the great unexplored areas of Christian apologetics.

Is it? Is it not then a contradiction that atheists are so massively underrepresented in prisons?

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

http://www.skeptictank.org/files/american/prison.htm

I'm pretty skeptical about relics also.

Indeed? I'll reserve comment on the video until I have a chance to watch them, but could you please outline exactly why Jesus' shroud should bare his face in the first place? What is even the claim here?

Did everything Jesus touched miraculously develop the image of his face in it, like a narcissistic King Midas? Does dying somehow imprint a person's face onto their death shroud? Did the Romans put ink on Jesus' face along with the crown of thorns before they crucified him? What is going on here? Why should Jesus' death shroud bare an imagine of his face any more than a three-cheese pizza?

WG: I believe in Christianity because I think it is the best evidenced out of all the competing worldviews.

But how does this translate into this specific interpretation of what a perfectly just God must or must not do?

WG: Are you a deist? Why or why not?

While I'm not a deist, one could accept deism or some other design theory without the fear of "judgment." This is response to your original claim that we do not accept design because we're God haters who fear judgment.

WG: But see my above reply. I'm not making things up as I go along. My beliefs are based upon what is recorded in scripture as I see the Judeo-Christian worldview the best evidenced and most explanatory of all the competing worldviews.

It must be the right interpretation because the Bible said so? This is an argument from authority.

WG: No, I think you missed his point. A perfectly JUST Being cannot ignore sin. There is a direct correlation. If a perfectly JUST Being turns a blind eye to sin and does nothing about it, that Being than immediately becomes an imperfectly Just being.

Immediately? Is God turning a blind eye to sin this very moment? Couldn't one claim that a *perfectly* just being couldn't "turn a blind eye" sin for even a moment? And, again, how could a perfectly just God allow someone else to be punished for someone else's sins?

In other words, what it means to "turn a blind eye" to sin seems to be easily varied. You happen to have chosen one particular variation because you think it's Biblical, rather than it's a necessary, well argued conclusion of what a perfectly just being must do.

WG: It has nothing to do with a completely uncorrelated action like the earth becoming cold.

If Demeter really was the "goddess" of the earth, and she really did become sad, then it would be uncorrelated that her becoming sad would cause the earth to become cold?

Again, you seem to be missing my point, which is the contrast between different types of explanations.

In one type of explanation, the coronations between the cast of characters (such as, there really is such a thing as a goddess of the earth) and the supposed outcome (such as, seasons) is part of the myth itself, rather than a necessary assumption that is external or independent of the narrative.

This is in contrast to our current explanation for the seasons, which is based on dozens of explanations in separate, independent fields, such as geometry, the theory of radiant heat absorption, optics, nuclear fusion, etc.

Do you see the contrast between them? Do you deny there is a contrast?

I then point out that the the coronations between the cast of characters in Christian salvation narrative are also part of the narrative itself. They are both shallow and easily varied.

However, your objection seems to be that you think the Bible is authoritative, while the Greek myths are not.

Are you suggesting that the Greeks did not also see primitive Polynesian religions are ridiculous compared to their Gods? Did they not think their Gods were the pinnacle of morality, the best interoperation of the evidence at the time, etc? Did they not see Greek mythology as authoritative?

In other words, you seem to think that you exist in a special point in time where we've figured it all out and 2,000 years from now, we will not look back on the Christian salvation narrative as we do now on Greek goods.

you might thank me for thanking you for thanking me, and so on ad infinitum, so I'll just mention it this once. :D

It's good to hear from you again, and don't worry I won't put you in an infinite thanking loop!

Atheism itself does not have any explanatory power on any topic....atheism is not a source of any answers at all.

Well for once we seem to completely agree with one another. However, in order to be an Atheist, one must believe in the non-existence of higher powers, which is to say that one must espouse that the Universe and life sprang into existence out of nothing by some random stochastic process. Not only do have zero evidence for this, but all of the evidence points in the opposite direction.

You apparently have no idea how ridiculous it looks to say that the Universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing, or that a lightning bolt struck a mud puddle and formed the first proto cell which then mutated into a human being. These are fantastic assertions that completely ridiculous and unevidenced. It actually takes much more faith to believe in these types of things than to believe that a powerful Agent created the world, as the scriptures tell us.

Then why don't you work towards finding out?

I'm always working towards finding out. And it seems to me that the more science discovers the more the truth claims of the scripture are validated.

The real question is why you think there should be a reason why we are here.

I think the scientific evidence (matter is not eternal in the past and life only comes from life) begs for a reason for us to be here. And a question to you is why you think there should be no reason why we are here.

Only because it has been established BEFORE-HAND that kings and aces are good - the best in fact. No such comparison can be made in the case of the universe.

Of course a comparison can be made in the case of the Universe. All of these values in the constants of physics exist in the extremely narrow life permitting range. It is far more probable the the Unverse should have life prohibiting values for these constants.

Moreover, virtually every religion has a creation myth. Which means virtually every religion says the universe was created ex nihilo.

Is that really true? I admit I'm no expert on world religions. I've seen some creation myths that claim that the world was hatched out of an egg or has always existed. Can you give me some non Abrahamic religious systems that claim that a god created the world ex nihilo?

Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian scriptures are the only holy book that claims that the Universe is expanding (Isaiah 51:13, Zechariah 12:1) and that time had a beginning (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2), of course in addition to claiming that the Universe began ex nihilo. All of these scientific concepts have only been confirmed within the last 100 years.

Ritchie (cont)Is it not then a contradiction that atheists are so massively underrepresented in prisons?

Only if you can prove that devout belief in God leads one to a life of crime. And I don't think you can prove that. Based on the research I referenced earlier, I'd say that devout belief in God would make one much less likely to be a criminal.

And the make-up of the prison population actually supports my position. What is the REAL common denominator there? The vast majority of criminals in prison come from fatherless homes. Secular humanism tells us that things like divorce are harmless for children and that fathers aren't really necessary. The scriptures tell us that God hates divorce and that fathers should be involved in their children's lives (Malachi 4:6).

So let's put these two viewpoints to the test. What do the actual results tell us? Looks like the scriptures win in a huge way, as the vast majority of violent criminals come from fatherless homes.

One final point about your atheism survey. I think its a safe bet to say that most self-identified atheists tend to be educated in colleges and universities, and college educated people are less likely to become violent criminals and end up in prison. So in order to do an apples to apples comparison, you'd have to compare the percentage of prisoners who are college educated atheists vs college educated devout Christians. If you can demonstrably show that college educated atheists are much less likely to end up in prison vs college educated devout (not simply cultural) Christians, then you can make a case.

Indeed? I'll reserve comment on the video until I have a chance to watch them, but could you please outline exactly why Jesus' shroud should bare his face in the first place? What is even the claim here?

Of course, the image on the Shroud of Turin is scientifically unexplainable and is from a crucified man who was crucified in the exact way that the Gospels describe the beating and crucifixion of Jesus. Additionally, the image has 3 dimensionally encoded information which is not possible to create from a painting or a photograph. There are many other strange things about it, and any description I gave would not do it justice. I highly recommend that you watch the video I linked earlier. I'd be very interested in hearing your take on the evidence.

Why should Jesus' death shroud bare an imagine of his face any more than a three-cheese pizza?

And here's where you go off the rails and show your ideological blinders by trying to equate a crackpot seeing Jesus' face in a pizza with an artifact that has been analzyed and evaluated by the best scientists in the world.

Scott: In other words, you seem to think that you exist in a special point in time where we've figured it all out and 2,000 years from now, we will not look back on the Christian salvation narrative as we do now on Greek [gods].

How do you know this? Did a voice in a whirlwind tell you?

WG: before I spend any additional time dialoguing with you, I'd like to know exactly what you meant by this question. Consider your answer carefully.

That a "a voice in a whirlwind" told you, or someone else, refers to special communication from a supernatural being - divine revelation.

WG: Is that a serious question, or an attempt by you to mock me and imply that you think I'm crazy.

It's a serious question. If you do think we exist in a special point in time, how else could you know this other than divine revelation? Or do you not think this is the case?

Furthermore, do you not believe that divine revelation is a valid means of justifying conclusions? Does the Bible not suggest that truth was delivered from a voice in a whirlwind, which also became part of the Bible?

In other words, I'm attempting to do is take your position seriously, rather than take a patriarchal view.

In other words, I'm attempting to do is take your position seriously, rather than take a patriarchal view.

As you wish. Your original question was:

In other words, you seem to think that you exist in a special point in time where we've figured it all out and 2,000 years from now, we will not look back on the Christian salvation narrative as we do now on Greek goods.

How do you know this? Did a voice in a whirlwind tell you?

Speculating on what people will be thinking 2,000 years from now is a waste of time. If you are trying to imply that science will continue to advance and prove all the Christian teachings wrong that is just pure fanciful speculation.

The patterns of science are trending towards Christian friendly conclusions. The origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the complexity of life, the origin of time, etc. The more science continues to discover the more teleological the evidence becomes. One recent example is that we have recently found that even the quantum properties of water are fine tuned.

I was going to reply last night but I burned my finger on my frying pan whilst making pancakes. Thought you'd appreciate the irony in that. :)

However, in order to be an Atheist, one must believe in the non-existence of higher powers...

Not quite. It's not that I actively believe 'higher powers' don't exist. I am just adopting a sceptical attitude until solid evidence is presented. That is all atheism is. It might sound like a petty distinction, but it is in fact an important one to bear in mind.

which is to say that one must espouse that the Universe and life sprang into existence out of nothing by some random stochastic process.

Not true. An atheist can very easily deny such things. An atheist is not bound to these, or any specific beliefs. S/he may believe any number of hypotheses about the origin of life/the universe as long as s/he does not invoke a god.

It just so happens that many atheists you talk to will espouse the Big Bang theory because that is what science tells us. Since atheism provides no myths of creation, etc., most atheists turn to science to address such questions.

Moreover, saying 'the universe sprang into existence out of nothing' is a slight misrepresentation of the Big Bang theory. The theory holds that the universe was once incredibly dense and incredibly hot before it went 'bang'. That is all. The idea that it sprang into existence out of literally nothing is a step beyond what the theory actually states.

You apparently have no idea how ridiculous it looks to say that the Universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing, or that a lightning bolt struck a mud puddle and formed the first proto cell which then mutated into a human being.

Ignoring that you are putting a mocking spin on those 'facts', it sounds ridiculous that light can be both a wave AND a particle simultaneously. It sounds ridiculous that if all the blood vessels in your body were laid end-to-end they would circle the world 2.5 times. It sounds ridiculous that a thimbleful of a neutron star would weigh over 100 million tons. It sounds ridiculous that, having blood type B, in terms of that one gene, I am more closely related to a chimpanzee with type B blood than I am to my own father. Yet these things are all nonetheless true.

What SOUNDS ridiculous is not a reliable indicator of what is actually true. Science deals in facts, not in which untestable story SOUNDS more likely (that is the reserve of religion).

These are fantastic assertions that completely ridiculous and unevidenced. It actually takes much more faith to believe in these types of things than to believe that a powerful Agent created the world, as the scriptures tell us.

The Big Bang and common ancestry are scientific theories. There is ample evidence for each, and they require no leap of faith at all. If they were otherwise, then they would not be scientific theories.

You are pitting your ideas of 'God created the universe and life', not against atheism per se, but against science. Do you really think your religious myths can trump scientific theories for evidence and objective plausibility?

I think the scientific evidence (matter is not eternal in the past and life only comes from life) begs for a reason for us to be here.

How so?

And a question to you is why you think there should be no reason why we are here.

Of course a comparison can be made in the case of the Universe. All of these values in the constants of physics exist in the extremely narrow life permitting range. It is far more probable the the Unverse should have life prohibiting values for these constants.

You don't know that. Allowing that the universe's constants COULD have been 'set' otherwise (which is far from an established fact), we have no idea how many of them would produce universes hospitable to life of some kind. Had it been 'set' otherwise, any number of universes might have been MORE hospitable to life (this one certainly isn't very).

The squirrel adapts to suit life in the trees. It was not the trees that were sculpted to suit the squirrel. The salmon adapts to suit life in the river. It was not the river which was created to suit the salmon. Life adapts to suit the universe it finds itself in. It was not the universe which was 'finely-tuned' to suit life.

Can you give me some non Abrahamic religious systems that claim that a god created the world ex nihilo?

Egyptian: Though different myths credited different creator Gods, they all claimed the world emerged from an infinite, lifeless sea ni a distant time called zp tpj, "the first occasion".

Greek: In the beginning there was nothing except the huge birth Nyx. She laid an egg from which were born the Titans. They made the gods and the gods created the world.

Aztec: In the beginning there was nothing but the great god Ometeotl, how gave birth to four other gods, who created the world and fought to rule over it as the sun. The world carries the scars of their battles.

Any many, many more...

Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian scriptures are the only holy book that claims that the Universe is expanding (Isaiah 51:13, Zechariah 12:1)

Errr, no they don't. Neither gives any specific indication this is an on-going process. They are both more in keeping with the factually incorrect idea of a firmament - a fixed, solid dome over the Earth. Consider Job 37:18 saying the sky "is strong, and as a molten looking glass."

and that time had a beginning

When was that scientifically established as fact?

Only if you can prove that devout belief in God leads one to a life of crime.

Not at all. The claim is that being religious makes you a better behaved person. That is belied if atheists are under-represented in jail. You are the one claiming the causal link here.

And the make-up of the prison population actually supports my position. What is the REAL common denominator there? The vast majority of criminals in prison come from fatherless homes.

Sorry, what?! So Christians are more likely to come from fatherless homes?

So let's put these two viewpoints to the test. What do the actual results tell us?

What results? Where are you getting these 'facts' from?

One final point about your atheism survey. I think its a safe bet to say that most self-identified atheists tend to be educated in colleges and universities, and college educated people are less likely to become violent criminals and end up in prison.

Well if that's true (and I'm not contesting it) then what does that tell us about religious belief if it generally doesn't survive a higher education?

I highly recommend that you watch the video I linked earlier. I'd be very interested in hearing your take on the evidence.

Okay, I watched 4 of the 12 videos, and I think I heard all I needed to. Correct me if I'm wrong there. But Barrie Schwortz already admitted the only thing identifying this image as Jesus is the crucifixion markings as the head wounds. That's it. Plenty of people were crucified in the first century, and it is ridiculous to think Jesus was the only person in the world who was ever crucified with such head wounds. Really, this is not a strong identification.

As to how the image was created - it's a mystery. This really seems just another case of you crying 'Mystery, therefore miracle'. Again, what is even the theory here? Does resurrection cause a body to leave an imprint on its death shroud when it comes back to life? Why should it do that? Did Jesus just do it deliberately somehow just to give us a relic? In which case why didn't he mention it to anyone when he woke up, or leave a less ambiguous relic? As far as I'm hearing, you don't have a reason as to why Jesus' body would have left an imagine on his death shroud, you are just crying 'Mystery, therefore miracle'.

Also it's worth noting that in 1988, independent teams from the universities of Oxford, Arizona and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, radiocarbon dated the shroud to the 13th - 14th centuries.

Finally - and this is just a random thought that occurred to me - why is there an image of his hair? If I had long hair and laid on my back, my hair would fall backwards; towards the ground, not towards my feet, which the 'hair' on the shroud seems to do...

The patterns of science are trending towards Christian friendly conclusions. The origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the complexity of life, the origin of time, etc. The more science continues to discover the more teleological the evidence becomes.

That's simply not true. The Genesis story of Creation is not scientifically accurate by any description more specific than 'the world had a beginning', which is advanced by practically every creation myth ever. And life being complex and the universe's 'fine tuning' are no indicators of a creator, let alone specifically the Christian one.

I started out by pointing out I would not need to "fear" abstract design or even supernatural abstract deign as an explanation of the biosphere due to fear of judgement. This is because design & judgement and non-design & non-judgement is a false dichotomy.

If you have nothing to say about this, then I'm assuming you now see the problem with this assumption.

I then pointed out that the reason *why* this is a false dichotomy is that the Christian salvation narrative is a bad explanation, in that it's easily varied. To illustrate this, I contrasted the ancient Greek explanation for the seasons with or current day explanation for the seasons.

That is, in the ancient Greek explanation the characters are only connected to the seasons though the narrative itself. As such, we could easily vary the explanation without having a significant effect on how well it explained the seasons. On the other hand, the our current day explanation for the seasons is based on a long chain of multiple, independent theories. We cannot easily vary the explanation without having a significant effect on how well it explains the seasons.

So, the former is a bad explanation because it's shallow and easily varied, while the latter is a good explanation, since it's deep and hard to vary. Do you see the significant difference between these two types of explanations? It's unclear if you do as you did not respond to this particular part of my argument.

When I then pointed out how the Christian salvation narrative represented the same type of explanation as the ancient Greek explanation for the seasons, you objected. However, rather than illustrate how they did not share the same structure, you pointed out we no longer consider explanations that include ancient Greek gods authoritative, while many people do consider explanations that include the Christian God authoritative.

It's at this point that I asked why you though the Bible's variations on what a perfectly just being would was the correct variation, given that it's easily varied. For example, one could just as easily suggest that a perfectly just God couldn't tolerate sin for even a moment, rather than punishing each of us after we die, or that a perfectly just God wouldn't allow for another person to be punished for someone else's sins, etc.

In other words, it's unclear what evidence you're referring to that supports the Biblical variation of what a perfectly just God would do. Rather, you seem to accept this specific variation merely because you think the Bible as a whole is authoritative.

Furthermore, I'm sure the ancient Greeks thought their explanations were authoritative at the time, as well.

So, to summarize, merely saying "people find it authoritative" doesn't mean the Christian salvation narrative doesn't represent a bad explantation. That's an argument from authority, rather than presenting an argument based on a long chain of multiple, independent theories.

"I like inquiry but sometimes I don't care at all. Which religious belief is that? I like hot dogs with chili, jalapeños ,and cheese, does this religious belief conflict with my love of enchiladas religion? It kinda seems if everything is a religious belief that makes the term meaningless. Where have I gone astray?"

Both seem to involve copious amounts of cheese, so it looks like you're safe. Buffets are nice too. For only $6.99 you can build your own religion, complete with commemorative cup, bumper sticker and side of cheese dip.

The term can indeed become meaningless, as can any other term. It certainly has taken on different connotation over the past century... as has "science"... and phrases like, "out of the box."

I do believe that Cuvier said the best explanation for the appearance of the fossil record was a series of catastrophies. That seems to match the fossil reocrd best, what with all those mass extinctions. Some theologies and various creation myths have cyclesof cration and destruction.

I do believe that Cuvier said the best explanation for the appearance of the fossil record was a series of catastrophies. That seems to match the fossil reocrd best, what with all those mass extinctions. Some theologies and various creation myths have cyclesof cration and destruction.

Evasive non-answer noted. Catastrophes don't explain the amazing number of different morphologies, or why we find so many lineages like the trilobites that show distinct directional morphological changes over time. Catastrophes can explain mass extinction events, but not the spatial and temporal distribution of the fossils, or the radiation of new forms after an extinction event.

I don't have all the answers. Sorry. But "We hope to have answer for yuo someday" is a response I often get from naturalists, evolutionists, etc. so why isn't it good enough for me.

The evidence is all those species that pop show up in the fossil record without any precursers, which would be the overwhelming majority of them. They popped up suddenly inthe fossil reocrd because they popped suddenly into existance. The fossil reocrd may be an accurate record of what really happened.

If they show up suddenly in the fossil record wihtout any prescursers, why can't that be considered an accurate record of what really happened? Lets follow the evidence. And we hope to have an answer for yuo someday.

And how does evolution explain the amzing number of distinct morphologies? It just evolved that way? And most of the directional chage from the Cambrian on, after all the basic body types where formed, was just tinkering with the basic plan. Most invertebrates have done very little evolving , directional or otherwise, since the Ordovician.

And isn't directional morphological change a concept borrowed from teleology? Evolution, being random, doesn't have any direction to evolve in.

And how does evolution explain the amzing number of distinct morphologies? It just evolved that way?

They evolved in response to the selection pressures in their particular environment.

And most of the directional chage from the Cambrian on, after all the basic body types where formed, was just tinkering with the basic plan. Most invertebrates have done very little evolving , directional or otherwise, since the Ordovician.

What about the vertebrates nat? Do you think all tetrapods - all the various types of dinosaurs; mammals like cats, giraffes, hippos, chimps; all the amphibians, etc. are all almost identical with just 'tinkering' little changes between them? No wonder you hid your Creationist "understanding" for so long.

And isn't directional morphological change a concept borrowed from teleology? Evolution, being random, doesn't have any direction to evolve in

Evolution doesn't pre-specify the direction. But you can certainly determine the direction that *was* traveled by doing after-the-fact measurements, as in the case of the trilobites.

The more you speak the more it becomes clear just how ignorant your are about evolutionary biology. You may want to cut your losses.

Brownian motion, being random, doesn't have a specific direction for particles to move in. And yet if you pick any span of time and measure the position of a particle at the beginning and end, you'll find that a particle has actually moved in a specific direction during that time.

What about vertebrates? I keep on hearing about he consilience of evidence. We have to look at the overall picture, not the anomalies. When we look at the overall pattern of the fossil record, it shows very little actual evolution since the devonian.

What about vertebrates? I keep on hearing about he consilience of evidence. We have to look at the overall picture, not the anomalies. When we look at the overall pattern of the fossil record, it shows very little actual evolution since the devonian.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

So vertebrates are anomalies.

All the dinosaurs that ever lived, all the reptiles, all the amphibians, all the birds, all the mammals, are just anomalies that don't show "actual" evolution. 500 million years' of vertebrate fossils that don't show "actual" evolution.

Congratulations nat. You managed to say something even more idiotic than Tedford.

IF 95% of organisms how very little change since the Devonian then the vertebrates are the exception. I was asked to explain the overall trends. Teh overall trend is mostly tinkering with basic pnas since the Cambrian, and mostly cosmetic changes since the Devonian. Maybe "anomaly" was a poor choice of terms, but it sounds more intellectual than exception.

Lino D'Ischia :The mutation rate for mammals, let us say, is 10^-7 bp/replication. This is equivalent to 10^-7 bp mutations/genome replicated. However, the "substitution rate" would be 10^-7 bp substituted/generation of the entire population. Very, very different results. This means that a population of mammals would "fix" one, single mutation every 10 million years in the absence of selection. So much for neutral drift.

We haven't been following the entire discussion, but that statement is incorrect. If the neutral mutation rate μ = 10^-7 per base and the genome is composed of 10^9 bases, then there are an average of 10^2 mutations per individual. If the population is 10^6, then there is a constant stream of about 10^8 mutations added to the population each and every generation. Over time, 10^2 mutations will become fixed in the population per generation.

This is easy to show. With the usual assumptions, consider a single mutation in an effective population of number N. What is the probability of fixation? By the law of small numbers, some variant at that position will sooner or later become fixed. The chance that this particular mutation will become fixed is simply 1/2N (diploid). There are 2Nμ mutations per generation across the population. 2Nμ * 1/2N = μ.

Instead of one mutation per 10 million years, it's 10^2 mutations every generation. Given a generation time of a year, that's a billion mutations.

You said "all the basic body types" were formed in the Cambrian. Humans have bilateral symmetry, an alimentary canal, with a mouth and sensory organs at one end. They are "just tinkering" of a basic chordate body plan, for instance, to have teeth, but so do other gnathostomes.

I was responding to a request aboe that I explain the overall trend of the fossil record. The overall trend seems to be just tinkering with the basic forms that showed up suddenly in the Cambrian. There might have been some adapatations that hve been more than just a little tinkering, but I was asked about the big picture.

Fantasy Island: Evolutionary Weirdness Does Not Favor Islands - July 2010Excerpt: “We concluded that the evolution of body sizes is as random with respect to ‘isolation’ as on the rest of the planet,” he said. “This means that you can expect to find the same sort of patterns on islands and on the mainland.”http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100708b

Amazing Insects Defy Evolution – October 2010Excerpt: India spent tens of millions of years as an island before colliding with Asia. Yet the fossil record contains no evidence that unique species evolved on the subcontinent during this time,http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201010.htm#20101026a

More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.html

The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again - Casey Luskin - November 5, 2011 Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that's the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html

How does the ToE explain the Big Picture? It looks like most lineages did most of their evolving before the Cambrian, then stopped evolving altogether, except for some cometic changes in the Devonian. What's the evolutionary explanation?

I keep on talking about the Big Picture, you birng up the exception. And even the basic chordate plan showed up in the Cambrian.

When people design things like cars, airplanes, computer programs, etc. etc. don't they usually create a functioning prototype? Then they modify that proto-type. Kinda like the history of life as revealed in the fossil reoord. So the maybe when we look at the Big Picture, it looks even more like design. How's that for parsimony?

Nat,You are showing a lot of stamina. So when you are looking at the Big Picture, are you saying that since evolution doesn't have to " Reinvent the wheel",it uses what is existing and modifies it,that makes evolution less likely? How else is it supposed to work?

What I'm saying is that the history of life as evidenced in the fossil record is looks like it would look if it was designed by someone (something?) that designed things like humans do. First a basic prototype, then modifications to subsequent versions.

Vertebrates are the exception to the overall pattern. Kinda like when distantly related organisms have similar genes, and closely realeted species don't. I keep on saying that vertebartes are the exception. I'm getting tired of repating myself. And even as an exception, they aren't a very big one. They don't deviate very far from the pattern.

I'm still waiting for the evolutionary explanation. Calling me names doesn't answer the question, though I'm sure it makes you feel better. You should try something like breathing excersizes, or imagery. Other methods are more effective than namecalling. That'a what I tell my students. I'm teaching elementary school now, so hear lots of name calling. I try to teach them alternatives to teasaing and verbal abuse.

Vertebrates are the exception to the overall pattern. Kinda like when distantly related organisms have similar genes, and closely realeted species don't. I keep on saying that vertebartes are the exception. I'm getting tired of repating myself.

You can say it as many times as you like and it won't be true. You've got to go from this Sacabambaspis, one of the earliest known vertebrates to all the dinosaurs, all the mammals, all the birds, all the reptiles, all the amphibians. You claim it's all by small "cosmetic changes" that "don't deviate very far from the pattern." Show us your mechanism nat. Explain how a giraffe or a T-rex or a blue whale doesn't deviate far from the pattern of the Sacabambaspis.

I'm still waiting for the evolutionary explanation.

You've seen it a hundred times on this board alone. It's genotypic variations causing phenotypic variations, which are then filtered by environmental selection pressures and accumulate as heritable traits.

Sorry nat, but lately you've been even a bigger idiot that Tedford. Not something to be proud of.

Doesn't Zakriel keep on saying that humans are just deuterostomes with limbs? Isn't the basic body plan of sacabamaspis similar to ours? Just Don't evolutionists point to all the similarites between us and things like sacambaspis as evidence that we are related. Now you want to say that we are distant?

And didn't I use the term "cosmetic changes" to refer to the changes in invertebrates since the Devonian?

What I meant was the evoltutionary explanation for why the history of life in the fossil record looks the way it does. I was asked to provide a design explanation. Does RN+NS require all the major phyla to show up within a very short geological time, vary very little, with the exception of vertebrates, then stop evolving, with the exception of vertebrates? Why didn't any of the phyla show up before the Cambrian? If they did, where are the precursors. And why haven't any new basic forms shown up since?

natschuster: Doesn't Zakriel keep on saying that humans are just deuterostomes with limbs?

Great! So we are in agreement that most of the evolutionary change leading from primitive chordates to fish and frogs and apes and humans is "just tinkering" of the basic chordate body plan.

natschuster: Now you want to say that we are distant?

Distance is relative, of course.

natschuster: Why didn't any of the phyla show up before the Cambrian?

There are some traces of bilaterates Precambrian, as well as cnidarians. And some scientists believe metazoans may have been predatory long before that, but the evidence is scant. Keep in mind that larger bodies were only possible once oxygen levels had reached sufficient levels. Also, development may have depended on the evolution of the hox toolkit.

Didn't I say that the history of life as evidenced in the fossil record looks like it was designed by someone who designs things like humans do? First, a prototype, then modifications? Why doesn't this count as an explanation? As far as the details about mechanisms, I'll take a page from your book and say, "we hope to have an answer for you someday."

Word to the wise. Trying to reason with Thorton is a huge waste of time. The guy has some sort of sociopathic need for attention and/or to feel superior to others and he fulfills this need by hurling insults at people who think that God exists.

I appreciate your arguments and agree with everything you have said. The fossil record from the Cambrian IS a huge problem for Darwinism. When they think that no one is looking, even the Darwinists will admit this.

When Chinese palentologists reported on the huge inconsistency between new Cambrian fossils found in China and the Darwinian narrative, they were met with dead silence from American biologists and commented that

In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.

Keep fighting the good fight but please believe me when I say that the best way to deal with Thorton is to ignore him, which is what I usually do except on those rare occasions when he asks me something in a semi-respectable way.

Word to the wise. Trying to reason with Thorton is a huge waste of time. The guy has some sort of sociopathic need for attention and/or to feel superior to others and he fulfills this need by hurling insults at people who think that God exists.

LOL! Poor little butler. Every time someone corrects a blatant falsehood told about science then THAT MEANS THEY HATE GOD!!!!

If you're trying to make religious folks look like absolute fools, then you're doing a great job.

When Chinese palentologists reported on the huge inconsistency between new Cambrian fossils found in China and the Darwinian narrative, they were met with dead silence from American biologists and commented that

What Chinese paleontologists and what huge inconsistency would those be? You have any references from the primary scientific literature? Or are you just mindlessly regurgitating more crap Creationist propaganda you can't explain and can't defend?

Present your evidence and we'll discuss it. Or at least I'll explain to you what it really means.

When Chinese palentologists reported on the huge inconsistency between new Cambrian fossils found in China and the Darwinian narrative, they were met with dead silence from American biologists and commented that

"In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

Butler here is way too clueless to know, but that story is a 100% bullcrap outright lie fabricated by Creationist Philip Johnson. The whole text can be found here.

Johnson took the punch line from and old joke and added his own lying spin to it. Notice we don't get the name of the Chinese scientist, or any of the American scientists, or the location where these lectures supposedly occurred, or what the fossil finds were.

Sadly, this type of lying propaganda is aimed at ignorant young people like wgbutler here. Even more sad is butler's total lack of critical thinking skills and inability to check if the swill he's gulping down is true.

But for some, the Darwinist establishment is very desirable – and questioning it is virtually a crime.When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

In the book God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by Oxford Professor of Mathematics John Lennox (whom I interviewed a few months ago), Lennox observes how interesting it is that Darwinian evolution has become an inextricable aspect of some worldviews:

“In the contemporary scientific world we thus have the very unusual situation that one of science’s most influential theories, biological macroevolution, stands in such a close relationship to naturalistic philosophy that it can be deduced from it directly – that is, without even needing to consider any evidence, as the ancient arguments of Lucretius plainly show. This circumstance is extraordinary since it is very difficult to think of another scientific theory that is in a similar position.” (Page 98)

He quotes biologist Douglas Futuyma as saying,

“Together with Marx’s materialistic theory of history and society and Freud’s attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism – of much of science, in short – that has been the stage of most Western thought.” (Page 87)

Some months ago an American philosopher explained to a highly sophisticated audience in Britain what, in his opinion, was wrong, indeed fatally wrong, with the standard neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution. He made it crystal clear that his criticism was not inspired by creationism, intelligent design or any remotely religious motivation. A senior gentleman in the audience erupted, in indignation: “You should not say such things, you should not write such things! The creationists will treasure them and use them against science.” The lecturer politely asked: “Even if they are true?” To which the instant and vibrant retort was: “Especially if they are true!” with emphasis on the ‘especially’.- Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, “It is now blasphemy to criticise Darwin,” Spiked Review of Books Online (26 March 2010)

and

In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.- Jun-Yuan Chen Research Professor Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, The The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1999)

The difference? Piatelli-Palmarini is allowed to criticize the government. But he is not criticizing the government; he is criticizing Darwin. And he is not an ID supporter.

In the Nature article announcing his latest findings, Jun-Yuan Chen and his colleagues reported dryly that the ancient fish "will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate." But the new fossils have become nothing less than a challenge to the theory of evolution in the hands Chen, a professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology. Chen argued that the emergence of such a sophisticated creature at so early a date show that modern life forms burst on the scene suddenly, rather than through any gradual process. According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can't account for the speed, the breadth, and one-time nature of "the Cambrian Explosion," a geological moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record. Rather than Charles Darwin's familiar notion of survival of the fittest, Chen said he believes scientists should focus on the possibility that a unique harmony between forms of life allowed complex organisms to emerge. If all we have to depend upon is chance and competition, the conventional forces of evolution, Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear."The debate over Haikoulla casts Western scientists in the unlikely role of defending themselves against charges of ideological blindness from scientists in Communist China. Chinese officials argue that the theory of evolution is so politically charged in the West that researchers are reluctant to admit shortcomings for fear of giving comfort to those who believe in a biblical creation. "Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge," declared the Communist Party's Guang Ming Daily last December in describing the fossils in southern China. "In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory.... In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion." Taunts from the Communist Party wouldn't carry much sting, however, if some Western scientists weren't also concerned about weaknesses in so-called neo-Darwinism, the dominant view of evolution over the last 50 years. "Neo-Darwinism is dead," said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where Chen had found his first impressions of Haikouella five years ago. ...

Dr. Paul Chien, chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, recently accepted a unique invitation to travel to China to study fossils of the Cambrian era...Today, Chien concentrates on further exploring and promoting the mysteries of the Cambrian explosion of life.....Even before I became a Christian, I had doubts about evolution....A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now....it turns out that this concept does not apply to the entire spectrum of animals or to the appearance or creation of different groups. Take all the different body plans of roundworms, flatworms, coral, jellyfish and whatever all those appeared at the very first instant.

Most textbooks will show a live tree of evolution with the groups evolving through a long period of time. If you take that tree and chop off 99 percent of it, [what is left] is closer to reality; it’s the true beginning of every group of animals, all represented at the very beginning.

Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups coming about, ever. There’s only one little exception cited the group known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later. However, most people think we just haven’t found it yet; that group was probably also present in the Cambrian explosion.

Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate....

But for some, the Darwinist establishment is very desirable – and questioning it is virtually a crime.

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.- Jun-Yuan Chen Research Professor Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, The The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1999)

Good lord but you're a gullible sap. There is no record ANYWHERE of Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen ever saying "“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”

Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen's name appears NOWHERE in Phillip Johnson's original article that was published in the Wall Street Journal. The quote was only attributed to him years later by folks at the Discovery Institute, when it became necessary to flesh out the lie a bit. The lie was then repeated by the IDiots at UD, and repeated almost verbatim in the right-wing religious pieces you cited.

The whole story is a lie from top to bottom concocted by Johnson and the DI just to catch gullible fools like you.

Didn't I say that the history of life as evidenced in the fossil record looks like it was designed by someone who designs things like humans do?

That's not an explanation. I didn't ask you for what you think it looks like. The Grand canyon looks like it was dug by a giant toddler with a giant toy shovel. I asked you for your explanation for what it is. The actual mechanisms that caused the observed patterns.

If you want to claim it was some entity doing prototyping, then provide your evidence it was an entity doing prototyping.

That's how real science works nat. You have to support your claims, not just pull them out of your rear end like you love to do.

As far as the details about mechanisms, I'll take a page from your book and say, "we hope to have an answer for you someday."

Then that's the day your fantasy claims will be taught in a science classroom.

What do you consider evidence? To my mind, if something looks like it was designed, then that is evidence that it was designed. If the we take the fossil record at face value, as an accurate representation of what really happened without apologetics like Punctuated Equilibrium, or the incompleteness of the fossil record, then it looks like it was designed. Why doesn't this count as evidence? What do yuo mean by mechanisms, exactly? Isn't design a mechanism? What is the mechanism behind a flint knife, a piece of pottery, or a stone circle? All these are considered designed because thye look like they where designed?

What do you consider evidence? To my mind, if something looks like it was designed, then that is evidence that it was designed.

Sorry, but the completely subjective opinion of an uneducated layman "looks designed to me!!" isn't considered scientific evidence.

What do yuo mean by mechanisms, exactly? Isn't design a mechanism?

A mechanism is the details of the process by which the object was produced. The HOW it came about. Just saying "design" is not a mechanism any more than saying "evolution" is a mechanism.

The mechanism for a flint knife is flint-knapping. The mechanism for pottery is producing wet clay, then shaping it while it turns on a rotating potter's wheel. Details nat. Science has them, you don't.

You don't have the faintest sniff of a clue how science actually works, do you Mr. science teacher?

If a thing has characteristics that we see in designed things only, then that would qualify as evidence of design. The overall pattern of life has characteristics of designed things. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever scene something like a prototype model,then subsequent modifications on later versions outside of designed things. Star formation? The individual star changes, not "later models." Galaxies? Same as stars.

I don't recall anyone ever saying an image of the Virgin Mary on a pancake was designed. I was under the impression they just said it was a miracle or a sign.

If a thing has characteristics that we see in designed things only, then that would qualify as evidence of design.

What characteristics would those be nat? It can't be mere complexity, because naturally occurring processes have been empirically observed to create complexity. It can't be irreducible complexity, because naturally occurring processes have been empirically observed to create irreducibly complex features too. It can't be specificity, because you have no way of determining after-the-fact what any pre-specification might have been.

IDiots have been trying for years to define their way out of the problem, coming up with dozens of meaningless buzzterms, but the fatal flaw is always the same. You have yet to demonstrate any characteristic in biological life that can only be caused by intelligent design.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever scene something like a prototype model,then subsequent modifications on later versions outside of designed things.

No one's ever seen it in biological life forms either. Are all the different breeds of dogs we see today just modifications to the prototype wolf? When were these prototype modifications manufactured and delivered?

I don't recall anyone ever saying an image of the Virgin Mary on a pancake was designed.

Lots of people saw it and said it "looked designed." Why isn't their subjective opinion as good as yours?

The cambrian is a huge problem for evolution but the whole concept is a fairy tale. Not a single example of unbounded and directional change has ever been observed in the history of science.

It is a huge leap to think that evolution can account for the origin of species via evolution since their cambrian when evolutionist are blinded by thinking that zero net directional change in finch beaks is compelling evidence. Cant name a single compelling and uncontroversial example of a genuine Speciation event that has been observed but the cambrian and beyond is no problem. Evolution imagines what did and could happen but is never actually observed to happen.

I'm sorry that the extent of your life is just as an eating tube. Love, laughter, creativity, music and a million other things await you beyond the dinner table.

natschuster: The cambrian is a huge problem for evolution but the whole concept is a fairy tale. Not a single example of unbounded and directional change has ever been observed in the history of science.

Hold it there, natschuster. You said this:

natschuster: And most of the directional chage from the Cambrian on, after all the basic body types where formed, was just tinkering with the basic plan.

YOU said there IS directional change. You said most of the directional change was "just tinkering" with the basic body plans established in the Cambrian.

Let see, the few million years of the Cambrian explosion is such a short span of time that so many new species couldn't possibly have arisen so quickly, therefore evolution must be false.

On the other hand, the 150 years since the publication of On The Origin Of Species is such a long span of time that we should have already seen many examples of new species by now, therefore evolution must be false.

wgbutler777: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.- Jun-Yuan Chen Research Professor Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, The The Wall Street Journal (August 16, 1999)"

Your attribution is misleading. The quote is from a polemic by Phillip E. Johnson, and it quotes an unnamed paleontologist. At best, it's a quote-mind. Here's an actual quote from Jun-Yuan Chen (emphasis added):

"Beautifully preserved organisms from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan, southern China, document the sudden appearance of diverse metazoan body plans at phylum or subphylum levels, which were either short-lived or have continued to the present day. These 530 million year old fossil representatives of living animal groups provide us with unique insight into the foundations of living animal groups at their evolutionary roots. Among these diverse animal groups, many including ctenophores, priapulids, sipunculans, arrow worms, tunicates, linguloids, are conservative, changing very little since the Early Cambrian. Others, especially Panarthropoda (superphylum), however, evolved rapidly, with origination of novel body plans representing different evolutionary stages one after another in a very short geological period of Early Cambrian time. These nested body plans portray a novel big picture of pararthropod evolution as a progression of step-wise changes both in the head and the appendages."

Notice how the "sudden appearance" is shown to be a "progression of step-wise changes".

So this quote is helping your case? The quote is framed in the usual assumption of evolution, however, the specifics of what he is saying betray evolutionary expectations.

"Sudden appearance of... phylum"

Plain language:This turns the Darwinian model upside down.

"Evolutionary roots" Phylum are roots? If one is not concerned where to start. Anyway, the evidence from the phylum level isnot any better, so this is just an assumption that evolution is a fact without any giving evidence for the statement.

"Evolved rapidly" .. "very short geological period".

--

Darwinism has been completely turned on its head in the Cambrian.

Body plans are not supposed to suddenly appear (which the author agrees was "sudden"). They are to form in a gradual progression.

What you have is evidence of a major creation event over a very short period of time followed by rapid bounded variation. Bounded variation jives perfectly with what we see occuring today. Your step-wise change is backwards and does not fit the evolutionary model.

In addition, their evolutionary model has probably lead them astray in detailing some of the supposed "progression". Remember they are superimposing evolution on the data... it is just that with the start of the Cambrian being so sudden they have nearly no data to cherry pick from.

Later in the Cambrian, the mosiac of life is chock full enough to allow for evolutionists to do some cherry picking.

The reality of it all is that what happened in the Cambrian variation after the creation event wasn't anything more than what we see with bird beaks and island lizards today.

I don't understand something. When Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen wrote that there was a "progression of step-wise changes" among the pararthtopods, was this before the basic plans for the phyla showed up, or after? Was the difference between pararthropods and the other groups that the former continued to evolve while the others froze? I read up some of the literature, and I can't seem to get a clear understanding.

I don't understand something. When Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen wrote that there was a "progression of step-wise changes" among the pararthtopods, was this before the basic plans for the phyla showed up, or after?

Here's access to the whole paper. Open the link and click PDF full text.

It seems to me that the article is saying that the pararthopods showed up, with a great deal fo variation in body types, and at different "steps" in evolutionary development, at the same time, in the Basal Cambrian.

Panarthropods are likely a monophyletic taxon, sharing a bodypattern which includes the following several important characteristics:a segmented body, paired appendages, and a chitinouscuticle that they molt during ecdysis (Ruppert et al., 2004). Thepresence of pyramid-yolk embryos (Chen et al., 2004c) and latedeveloping embryos with segmented germ band (Chen, 2004;Steiner et al., 2004) at very basal part of the Lower CambrianMeishucun phosphate deposits suggest that they were deeplyrooted at very beginning of Cambrian about 542 million years agoor even before. The exceptionally well-preserved fossil faunafrom the 530 million years old Maotianshan Shale depositsprovides a fossil record of remarkably diverse arthropods thatembrace a number of body organizations representing of differentevolutionary stages, including worm-like stem lineagepanarthropods referred to as Tardiopolypoda (Chen and Zhou,1997); stem lineage arthropods (proarthropods) (Chen, 2004;Waloszeck et al., 2005);’stem lineage euarthropods; and thepossible ancestral form of the two major extant euarthropodgroups, e.g, Chelicerata (Chen et al., 2004b) and Mandibulata(Chen et al., 2001). These nested body plans of different evolutionarystages suggest the presence of step-wise and condensedevolutionary events, which led in the line of evolution from wormlikeancestor to euarthropods within a short geological time ofabout 12 million years in the Early Cambrian.Body plans of the stem groups of the Panarthropoda

It seems to be saying that most of the variety was found in one location, dated to 530 million years ago. There where some more primitve forms from 542 million years ago.

Semantics is the last refuge of someone caught being dishonest without outright lying. Yes, skimming is technically reading. For that matter reading the first word of the title of a paper and nothing else is technically "reading" it. The point is that you made no attempt to actually comprehend the paper. You read enough to be able to quote it, and then dismissed it as though you were informed enough to do so.

natschuster: It seems to be saying that most of the variety was found in one location, dated to 530 million years ago. There where some more primitve forms from 542 million years ago.

The author is showing the the divergence of body plans begins with a complex organism, and that the documentary evidence for the evolution of euarthropods is consistent with step-wise evolutionary development.